|
Post by compeateropeator on Jun 6, 2016 12:43:51 GMT
I disagree with this. While my father certainly is not a Trump fan he is definitely an anti-Hillary democrat. He has said he will not vote for Hilllary no matter what. So whether he will just abstain from voting or vote for Trump, if that is the ticket...I don't know. But I can tell you that he is certainly a man of virtue, honor and thinks his family is important and is everything.
I will not disown him if he votes for Trump and it will not change my love and admiration for him. He has not changed as a person, he just thinks Trump may be the lessor of two evils. And like me, he also believes that we will survive as a nation even if Trump wins. He believes while the President is important, they only have so much power...the checks and balances are there. And that where we really need to clean house and where our concerns should be is Congress.
So I agree with Lauren in this case. Unless there are other/bigger issues going on, divorcing for the sole reason of voting for Trump does seem extreme and strange to me. I have friends and family all over the political spectrum and we all can coexist. We may not always agree and it may cause us to roll our eyes sometimes, but so do a lot of things in life.
Off to finish reading the thread, but I just couldn't pass that by.
|
|
|
Post by auntkelly on Jun 6, 2016 14:27:53 GMT
I'm not happy w/ either Presidential candidate. I'll vote my conscious, and trust that my friends and family are doing the same.
I look to the example of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, political rivals who disagreed on just about everything, especially slavery. They had one bitter falling out and didn't speak to each other for years, but mended their friendship and became best friends again at the end of their lives. A more modern example would be Ted Kennedy and John McCain. They were political opposites, but were the best of friends and McCain gave the eulogy at Kennedy's funeral.
I don't need to end any friendships over politics. I'm certainly not going to end my marriage over politics, and believe me, my husband and I have had some pretty feisty political debates over the years.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jun 6, 2016 14:32:12 GMT
One of the more interesting political coincidences involve Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. They both died on July 4, 1826.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 17:30:54 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 16:37:48 GMT
Ok so the Boston Massacre was when Pluto was deep into Capricorn last ( 1770 ) and the president was John Adams? Is there any way that Adams changed the world? ETA: the question mark because google is not being my friend I'm pretty sure that we didn't have a President in 1770, since we hadn't even declared our independence yet. The first U.S. Presidential election was in 1789. Actually, John Hanson was the first acting President of the United States(became the first President of the United States under the Articles of Confederation), he served from Nov 5, 1781 till Nov 3, 1782. George Washington was the first elected President of the United States. Not sure why you'd post this, since I clearly said the first Presidential election. John Hanson wasn't the acting President of the United States in 1770, since we were still under British rule.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Jun 6, 2016 16:56:50 GMT
I disagree with this. While my father certainly is not a Trump fan he is definitely an anti-Hillary democrat. He has said he will not vote for Hilllary no matter what. So whether he will just abstain from voting or vote for Trump, if that is the ticket...I don't know. But I can tell you that he is certainly a man of virtue, honor and thinks his family is important and is everything. I will not disown him if he votes for Trump and it will not change my love and admiration for him. He has not changed as a person, he just thinks Trump may be the lessor of two evils. And like me, he also believes that we will survive as a nation even if Trump wins. He believes while the President is important, they only have so much power...the checks and balances are there. And that where we really need to clean house and where our concerns should be is Congress. So I agree with Lauren in this case. Unless there are other/bigger issues going on, divorcing for the sole reason of voting for Trump does seem extreme and strange to me. I have friends and family all over the political spectrum and we all can coexist. We may not always agree and it may cause us to roll our eyes sometimes, but so do a lot of things in life. Off to finish reading the thread, but I just couldn't pass that by. I completely agree with this, thank you
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on Jun 6, 2016 17:44:21 GMT
I disagree with this. While my father certainly is not a Trump fan he is definitely an anti-Hillary democrat. He has said he will not vote for Hilllary no matter what. So whether he will just abstain from voting or vote for Trump, if that is the ticket...I don't know. But I can tell you that he is certainly a man of virtue, honor and thinks his family is important and is everything. I will not disown him if he votes for Trump and it will not change my love and admiration for him. He has not changed as a person, he just thinks Trump may be the lessor of two evils. And like me, he also believes that we will survive as a nation even if Trump wins. He believes while the President is important, they only have so much power...the checks and balances are there. And that where we really need to clean house and where our concerns should be is Congress. So I agree with Lauren in this case. Unless there are other/bigger issues going on, divorcing for the sole reason of voting for Trump does seem extreme and strange to me. I have friends and family all over the political spectrum and we all can coexist. We may not always agree and it may cause us to roll our eyes sometimes, but so do a lot of things in life. Off to finish reading the thread, but I just couldn't pass that by. I think that most of us are saying that if our spouse were to vote for Trump and it may cause us to think of divorce, it would be because it would be a SUDDEN RADICAL change in the spouse's belief system as presented to date. In my case, the hows and whys of their Trump support would come into play. Trump is a very polarizing candidate due to some of the remarks he's made that I feel are racist and misogynistic. For MY spouse to suddenly say "I'm voting for Trump" it would be so very different from the ideals he has lived and espoused it would make me insist on a doctor's check up to make sure he didn't have a brain tumor first. Beyond that it would require some counseling so we could see if we could work out these differences. No resolution, it may lead to a divorce. This would not be a case of sometimes he votes Republican because he's more financially conservative. This would be a case of my husband deciding that we "need to build a wall" among the other more incendiary things Trump has said. For the record, my dad is voting for Trump. His support is because he's Republican and he thinks Trump will bring jobs back. My mom may vote for him because he's the Republican candidate and she hates Hillary even though she thinks Trump is absolutely awful. I do not plan on disowning them because this is not a sudden radical shift in their ideology nor do they think Trump is the greatest thing since sliced bread. So I don't think most of us are saying we would just divorce our spouse because they vote differently than us. It would be the CHANGE in values that could be a deal breaker.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 17:30:54 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 18:49:42 GMT
I disagree with this. While my father certainly is not a Trump fan he is definitely an anti-Hillary democrat. He has said he will not vote for Hilllary no matter what. So whether he will just abstain from voting or vote for Trump, if that is the ticket...I don't know. But I can tell you that he is certainly a man of virtue, honor and thinks his family is important and is everything. I will not disown him if he votes for Trump and it will not change my love and admiration for him. He has not changed as a person, he just thinks Trump may be the lessor of two evils. And like me, he also believes that we will survive as a nation even if Trump wins. He believes while the President is important, they only have so much power...the checks and balances are there. And that where we really need to clean house and where our concerns should be is Congress. So I agree with Lauren in this case. Unless there are other/bigger issues going on, divorcing for the sole reason of voting for Trump does seem extreme and strange to me. I have friends and family all over the political spectrum and we all can coexist. We may not always agree and it may cause us to roll our eyes sometimes, but so do a lot of things in life. Off to finish reading the thread, but I just couldn't pass that by. I think that most of us are saying that if our spouse were to vote for Trump and it may cause us to think of divorce, it would be because it would be a SUDDEN RADICAL change in the spouse's belief system as presented to date. In my case, the hows and whys of their Trump support would come into play. Trump is a very polarizing candidate due to some of the remarks he's made that I feel are racist and misogynistic. For MY spouse to suddenly say "I'm voting for Trump" it would be so very different from the ideals he has lived and espoused it would make me insist on a doctor's check up to make sure he didn't have a brain tumor first. Beyond that it would require some counseling so we could see if we could work out these differences. No resolution, it may lead to a divorce. This would not be a case of sometimes he votes Republican because he's more financially conservative. This would be a case of my husband deciding that we "need to build a wall" among the other more incendiary things Trump has said. For the record, my dad is voting for Trump. His support is because he's Republican and he thinks Trump will bring jobs back. My mom may vote for him because he's the Republican candidate and she hates Hillary even though she thinks Trump is absolutely awful. I do not plan on disowning them because this is not a sudden radical shift in their ideology nor do they think Trump is the greatest thing since sliced bread. So I don't think most of us are saying we would just divorce our spouse because they vote differently than us. It would be the CHANGE in values that could be a deal breaker. Why is building a wall to protect the border an incendiary thing to say?
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on Jun 6, 2016 19:05:30 GMT
I think that most of us are saying that if our spouse were to vote for Trump and it may cause us to think of divorce, it would be because it would be a SUDDEN RADICAL change in the spouse's belief system as presented to date. In my case, the hows and whys of their Trump support would come into play. Trump is a very polarizing candidate due to some of the remarks he's made that I feel are racist and misogynistic. For MY spouse to suddenly say "I'm voting for Trump" it would be so very different from the ideals he has lived and espoused it would make me insist on a doctor's check up to make sure he didn't have a brain tumor first. Beyond that it would require some counseling so we could see if we could work out these differences. No resolution, it may lead to a divorce. This would not be a case of sometimes he votes Republican because he's more financially conservative. This would be a case of my husband deciding that we "need to build a wall" among the other more incendiary things Trump has said. For the record, my dad is voting for Trump. His support is because he's Republican and he thinks Trump will bring jobs back. My mom may vote for him because he's the Republican candidate and she hates Hillary even though she thinks Trump is absolutely awful. I do not plan on disowning them because this is not a sudden radical shift in their ideology nor do they think Trump is the greatest thing since sliced bread. So I don't think most of us are saying we would just divorce our spouse because they vote differently than us. It would be the CHANGE in values that could be a deal breaker. Why is building a wall to protect the border an incendiary thing to say? It was the first thing I could think of when typing my post (chemo brain). It's not the worst thing he's said by a long shot but it's something I don't agree with.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 17:30:54 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 19:06:47 GMT
Why is building a wall to protect the border an incendiary thing to say? It was the first thing I could think of when typing my post (chemo brain). It's not the worst thing he's said by a long shot but it's something I don't agree with. How come?
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on Jun 6, 2016 19:13:53 GMT
It was the first thing I could think of when typing my post (chemo brain). It's not the worst thing he's said by a long shot but it's something I don't agree with. How come? Personally I think it would be a colossal waste of money and would not be effective. How many drug and people smuggling tunnels have been found on the border? I would prefer those dollars be put to use hiring and training more border patrol agents and enforcing the laws already on the books. And no I don't think Mexico is going to pay to build the wall despite Trump's assurances that it will.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jun 6, 2016 20:28:35 GMT
Mexico spent all its money building a wall on its Southern Border to keep the Central and South Americans out
|
|
|
Post by 3dcrafter on Jun 7, 2016 1:17:48 GMT
Actually, John Hanson was the first acting President of the United States(became the first President of the United States under the Articles of Confederation), he served from Nov 5, 1781 till Nov 3, 1782. George Washington was the first elected President of the United States. Not sure why you'd post this, since I clearly said the first Presidential election. John Hanson wasn't the acting President of the United States in 1770, since we were still under British rule. Just a lesser known fact I thought people might be interested in knowing...nothing to to be defensive/offended over. Was more for mymindseye then it was for you anyway, thought she (and other readers) might find it interesting.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 7, 2016 2:05:18 GMT
@mytnice said:
Building a wall is reminiscent of the Berlin Wall, the Great Wall ... we've been here for nearly 250 years and we've never needed a wall. We get along like friends with our neighbors to both the north and the south. Till now, apparently.
It's also silly because it wouldn't work. It's too expensive (and no, Mexico isn't going to pay for it, no matter how many times Trump says they will), it would take too long, there are places along the border where you can't even build a wall. Once it was built, there would be tunnels underneath it or airplanes above it or holes blasted through it. It would strangle the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico.
And then who's going to pay for the wall between the U.S. and Canada? Because don't think people aren't pouring over that border, too.
The fact is, "illegal aliens" (I hate that term) contribute more to our economy than they take away from it. Despite Trump's claims to the contrary and a few high-profile exceptions, undocumented immigrants have a lower crime rate than regular citizens (surprise! they are trying not to get caught!).
And for all the people who say "but we welcome legal immigrants," please understand that there has been almost no provision in U.S. immigration law for lawful immigration of unskilled/low-skilled workers from Latin America.
So we have a long tradition of quietly encouraging and accepting these undocumented immigrants. Most of today's Mexican-American citizens (even the ones who don't approve of illegal immigration) are descended from people who just walked or drove across the border to work on farms, the railroad, in construction. That's the way it's been done for generations. We keep offering them jobs, they're going to keep coming.
And today, we're in the negative on immigration rates, but never mind that. We've had prop. 187 and a recession and a tea party and a buffoon of a candidate, so suddenly we want a wall.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 17:30:54 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2016 2:31:04 GMT
@mytnice said: Building a wall is reminiscent of the Berlin Wall, the Great Wall ... we've been here for nearly 250 years and we've never needed a wall. We get along like friends with our neighbors to both the north and the south. Till now, apparently. It's also silly because it wouldn't work. It's too expensive (and no, Mexico isn't going to pay for it, no matter how many times Trump says they will), it would take too long, there are places along the border where you can't even build a wall. Once it was built, there would be tunnels underneath it or airplanes above it or holes blasted through it. It would strangle the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico. And then who's going to pay for the wall between the U.S. and Canada? Because don't think people aren't pouring over that border, too. The fact is, "illegal aliens" (I hate that term) contribute more to our economy than they take away from it. Despite Trump's claims to the contrary and a few high-profile exceptions, undocumented immigrants have a lower crime rate than regular citizens (surprise! they are trying not to get caught!). And for all the people who say "but we welcome legal immigrants," please understand that there has been almost no provision in U.S. immigration law for lawful immigration of unskilled/low-skilled workers from Latin America. So we have a long tradition of quietly encouraging and accepting these undocumented immigrants. Most of today's Mexican-American citizens (even the ones who don't approve of illegal immigration) are descended from people who just walked or drove across the border to work on farms, the railroad, in construction. That's the way it's been done for generations. We keep offering them jobs, they're going to keep coming. And today, we're in the negative on immigration rates, but never mind that. We've had prop. 187 and a recession and a tea party and a buffoon of a candidate, so suddenly we want a wall. Bravo Lucy! and just to add that this country was not founded on building walls to keep people out.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,015
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Jun 7, 2016 12:10:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jun 7, 2016 12:21:44 GMT
I'm trying to imagine the beauty of Big Bend National Park, which shares a border with Mexico, and from which the mountain and desert views extend well into Mexico, ruined by an ugly wall. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
ETA: And assuming that such a wall could be built, what do Trump and his people think will keep people from taking a boat into the Gulf of Mexico and washing up on a deserted part of the gulf coast? Or are we going to wall off all of Texas' beaches, too? And build a big wall to keep the same from happening along California's coast line?
My biggest issue with the wall suggested is that it really just showcases the ignorance of the American people, to think that (a) something like that could be built and that (ha!) Trump is somehow going to get Mexico to pay for it, and (b) that it's going to actually prevent illegal immigration. It would, instead, be a giant monument to the stupidity and xenophobia of the American people.
Much better, as others have mentioned, to make a workable way for low-paid workers to get visas and pay taxes.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jun 7, 2016 13:40:13 GMT
@mytnice said: Building a wall is reminiscent of the Berlin Wall, the Great Wall ... we've been here for nearly 250 years and we've never needed a wall. We get along like friends with our neighbors to both the north and the south. Till now, apparently. It's also silly because it wouldn't work. It's too expensive (and no, Mexico isn't going to pay for it, no matter how many times Trump says they will), it would take too long, there are places along the border where you can't even build a wall. Once it was built, there would be tunnels underneath it or airplanes above it or holes blasted through it. It would strangle the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico. And then who's going to pay for the wall between the U.S. and Canada? Because don't think people aren't pouring over that border, too. The fact is, "illegal aliens" (I hate that term) contribute more to our economy than they take away from it. Despite Trump's claims to the contrary and a few high-profile exceptions, undocumented immigrants have a lower crime rate than regular citizens (surprise! they are trying not to get caught!). And for all the people who say "but we welcome legal immigrants," please understand that there has been almost no provision in U.S. immigration law for lawful immigration of unskilled/low-skilled workers from Latin America. So we have a long tradition of quietly encouraging and accepting these undocumented immigrants. Most of today's Mexican-American citizens (even the ones who don't approve of illegal immigration) are descended from people who just walked or drove across the border to work on farms, the railroad, in construction. That's the way it's been done for generations. We keep offering them jobs, they're going to keep coming. And today, we're in the negative on immigration rates, but never mind that. We've had prop. 187 and a recession and a tea party and a buffoon of a candidate, so suddenly we want a wall. Sorry, Lucy. This isn't even close. As someone who had been to the Berlin wall when it was still standing I can say that keeping people in is much different from keeping people out. I was devastated to learn (as a teen) that a woman had been shot (trying to escape) just two weeks prior to my visit to Berlin. The wall Trump is talking about is nothing like that. Not even remotely similar.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 7, 2016 14:43:24 GMT
@mytnice said: Building a wall is reminiscent of the Berlin Wall, the Great Wall ... we've been here for nearly 250 years and we've never needed a wall. We get along like friends with our neighbors to both the north and the south. Till now, apparently. It's also silly because it wouldn't work. It's too expensive (and no, Mexico isn't going to pay for it, no matter how many times Trump says they will), it would take too long, there are places along the border where you can't even build a wall. Once it was built, there would be tunnels underneath it or airplanes above it or holes blasted through it. It would strangle the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico. And then who's going to pay for the wall between the U.S. and Canada? Because don't think people aren't pouring over that border, too. The fact is, "illegal aliens" (I hate that term) contribute more to our economy than they take away from it. Despite Trump's claims to the contrary and a few high-profile exceptions, undocumented immigrants have a lower crime rate than regular citizens (surprise! they are trying not to get caught!). And for all the people who say "but we welcome legal immigrants," please understand that there has been almost no provision in U.S. immigration law for lawful immigration of unskilled/low-skilled workers from Latin America. So we have a long tradition of quietly encouraging and accepting these undocumented immigrants. Most of today's Mexican-American citizens (even the ones who don't approve of illegal immigration) are descended from people who just walked or drove across the border to work on farms, the railroad, in construction. That's the way it's been done for generations. We keep offering them jobs, they're going to keep coming. And today, we're in the negative on immigration rates, but never mind that. We've had prop. 187 and a recession and a tea party and a buffoon of a candidate, so suddenly we want a wall. Sorry, Lucy. This isn't even close. As someone who had been to the Berlin wall when it was still standing I can say that keeping people in is much different from keeping people out. I was devastated to learn (as a teen) that a woman had been shot (trying to escape) just two weeks prior to my visit to Berlin. The wall Trump is talking about is nothing like that. Not even remotely similar. rainbow/bunny, it IS very reminisce of The Berlin Wall, including the idea of why the wall was erected in the first place. "The Berlin Wall --The Eastern Bloc claimed that the Wall was erected to protect its population from fascist elements conspiring to prevent the "will of the people" in building a socialist state in East Germany. In practice, the Wall served to prevent the massive emigration and defection that had marked East Germany and the communist Eastern Bloc during the post-World War II period. The Berlin Wall was officially referred to as the "Anti-Fascist Protective Wall" (German: Antifaschistischer Schutzwall) by GDR authorities, implying that the NATO countries and West Germany in particular were considered equal to "fascists"[5] by GDR propaganda. The West Berlin city government sometimes referred to it as the "Wall of Shame"—a term coined by mayor Willy Brandt—while condemning the Wall's restriction on freedom of movement. Along with the separate and much longer Inner German border (IGB), which demarcated the border between East and West Germany, it came to symbolize the "Iron Curtain" that separated Western Europe and the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War." They didn't want their people coming OR going. With Trump, he wants to kick them out AND prevent them from coming in. It WAS devastating that people were killed trying to immigrate/defect/flee that sector of Germany back then. If anything, you would thing Trump would not repeat that kind of history. Cut to our future---If you build a wall, and people climb it, are they going to be shot for doing so?
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jun 7, 2016 15:37:14 GMT
Sorry, Lucy. This isn't even close. As someone who had been to the Berlin wall when it was still standing I can say that keeping people in is much different from keeping people out. I was devastated to learn (as a teen) that a woman had been shot (trying to escape) just two weeks prior to my visit to Berlin. The wall Trump is talking about is nothing like that. Not even remotely similar. rainbow/bunny, it IS very reminisce of The Berlin Wall, including the idea of why the wall was erected in the first place. "The Berlin Wall --The Eastern Bloc claimed that the Wall was erected to protect its population from fascist elements conspiring to prevent the "will of the people" in building a socialist state in East Germany. In practice, the Wall served to prevent the massive emigration and defection that had marked East Germany and the communist Eastern Bloc during the post-World War II period. The Berlin Wall was officially referred to as the "Anti-Fascist Protective Wall" (German: Antifaschistischer Schutzwall) by GDR authorities, implying that the NATO countries and West Germany in particular were considered equal to "fascists"[5] by GDR propaganda. The West Berlin city government sometimes referred to it as the "Wall of Shame"—a term coined by mayor Willy Brandt—while condemning the Wall's restriction on freedom of movement. Along with the separate and much longer Inner German border (IGB), which demarcated the border between East and West Germany, it came to symbolize the "Iron Curtain" that separated Western Europe and the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War." They didn't want their people coming OR going. With Trump, he wants to kick them out AND prevent them from coming in. It WAS devastating that people were killed trying to immigrate/defect/flee that sector of Germany back then. If anything, you would thing Trump would not repeat that kind of history. Cut to our future---If you build a wall, and people climb it, are they going to be shot for doing so? Actually, people could go into East Germany, just the residents of East Germany could not leave. The West German family I stayed with had relatives in East Germany and went to visit them on holidays. I actually took the S-bahn and the East German stations were darkened when we stopped there. I don't know why, because we could clearly read the signs. Weird. I vividly remember the towers that we could climb in Berlin to look over the wall and remember seeing the guards patrolling with their weapons. There was sand/gravel, barbed wire and the wall. You'd never make it if you just ran. The woman that was shot was swimming the river. It was something I will NEVER forget. I'm free, and damn sure going to do my best to keep it that way. Socialism is NOT NOT NOT the way.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 7, 2016 15:40:34 GMT
rainbow/bunny, it IS very reminisce of The Berlin Wall, including the idea of why the wall was erected in the first place. "The Berlin Wall --The Eastern Bloc claimed that the Wall was erected to protect its population from fascist elements conspiring to prevent the "will of the people" in building a socialist state in East Germany. In practice, the Wall served to prevent the massive emigration and defection that had marked East Germany and the communist Eastern Bloc during the post-World War II period. The Berlin Wall was officially referred to as the "Anti-Fascist Protective Wall" (German: Antifaschistischer Schutzwall) by GDR authorities, implying that the NATO countries and West Germany in particular were considered equal to "fascists"[5] by GDR propaganda. The West Berlin city government sometimes referred to it as the "Wall of Shame"—a term coined by mayor Willy Brandt—while condemning the Wall's restriction on freedom of movement. Along with the separate and much longer Inner German border (IGB), which demarcated the border between East and West Germany, it came to symbolize the "Iron Curtain" that separated Western Europe and the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War." They didn't want their people coming OR going. With Trump, he wants to kick them out AND prevent them from coming in. It WAS devastating that people were killed trying to immigrate/defect/flee that sector of Germany back then. If anything, you would thing Trump would not repeat that kind of history. Cut to our future---If you build a wall, and people climb it, are they going to be shot for doing so? Actually, people could go into East Germany, just the residents of East Germany could not leave. The West German family I stayed with had relatives in East Germany and went to visit them on holidays. I actually took the S-bahn and the East German stations were darkened when we stopped there. I don't know why, because we could clearly read the signs. Weird. I vividly remember the towers that we could climb in Berlin to look over the wall and remember seeing the guards patrolling with their weapons. There was sand/gravel, barbed wire and the wall. You'd never make it if you just ran. The woman that was shot was swimming the river. It was something I will NEVER forget. I'm free, and damn sure going to do my best to keep it that way. Socialism is NOT NOT NOT the way.So...not a big fan of Bernie then, huh?!
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jun 7, 2016 16:08:43 GMT
rainbow /bunny, it IS very reminisce of The Berlin Wall, including the idea of why the wall was erected in the first place. "The Berlin Wall --The Eastern Bloc claimed that the Wall was erected to protect its population from fascist elements conspiring to prevent the "will of the people" in building a socialist state in East Germany. In practice, the Wall served to prevent the massive emigration and defection that had marked East Germany and the communist Eastern Bloc during the post-World War II period. The Berlin Wall was officially referred to as the "Anti-Fascist Protective Wall" (German: Antifaschistischer Schutzwall) by GDR authorities, implying that the NATO countries and West Germany in particular were considered equal to "fascists"[5] by GDR propaganda. The West Berlin city government sometimes referred to it as the "Wall of Shame"—a term coined by mayor Willy Brandt—while condemning the Wall's restriction on freedom of movement. Along with the separate and much longer Inner German border (IGB), which demarcated the border between East and West Germany, it came to symbolize the "Iron Curtain" that separated Western Europe and the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War." They didn't want their people coming OR going. With Trump, he wants to kick them out AND prevent them from coming in. It WAS devastating that people were killed trying to immigrate/defect/flee that sector of Germany back then. If anything, you would thing Trump would not repeat that kind of history. Cut to our future---If you build a wall, and people climb it, are they going to be shot for doing so? Actually, people could go into East Germany, just the residents of East Germany could not leave. The West German family I stayed with had relatives in East Germany and went to visit them on holidays. I actually took the S-bahn and the East German stations were darkened when we stopped there. I don't know why, because we could clearly read the signs. Weird. I vividly remember the towers that we could climb in Berlin to look over the wall and remember seeing the guards patrolling with their weapons. There was sand/gravel, barbed wire and the wall. You'd never make it if you just ran. The woman that was shot was swimming the river. It was something I will NEVER forget. I'm free, and damn sure going to do my best to keep it that way. Socialism is NOT NOT NOT the way.Paging @mymindseye - THIS is irony. Unintentional, but still irony.
|
|
|
Post by mirabelleswalker on Jun 7, 2016 16:19:21 GMT
NEVER FORGET is an odd choice of words in this circumstance. Wow.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 17:30:54 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2016 17:11:47 GMT
Not sure why you'd post this, since I clearly said the first Presidential election. John Hanson wasn't the acting President of the United States in 1770, since we were still under British rule. Just a lesser known fact I thought people might be interested in knowing...nothing to to be defensive/offended over. Was more for mymindseye then it was for you anyway, thought she (and other readers) might find it interesting. Thank you for explaining. Looks like I did get a bit prickly
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 17:30:54 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2016 18:44:47 GMT
@mytnice said: Building a wall is reminiscent of the Berlin Wall, the Great Wall ... we've been here for nearly 250 years and we've never needed a wall. We get along like friends with our neighbors to both the north and the south. Till now, apparently. It's also silly because it wouldn't work. It's too expensive (and no, Mexico isn't going to pay for it, no matter how many times Trump says they will), it would take too long, there are places along the border where you can't even build a wall. Once it was built, there would be tunnels underneath it or airplanes above it or holes blasted through it. It would strangle the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico. And then who's going to pay for the wall between the U.S. and Canada? Because don't think people aren't pouring over that border, too. The fact is, "illegal aliens" (I hate that term) contribute more to our economy than they take away from it. Despite Trump's claims to the contrary and a few high-profile exceptions, undocumented immigrants have a lower crime rate than regular citizens (surprise! they are trying not to get caught!). And for all the people who say "but we welcome legal immigrants," please understand that there has been almost no provision in U.S. immigration law for lawful immigration of unskilled/low-skilled workers from Latin America. So we have a long tradition of quietly encouraging and accepting these undocumented immigrants. Most of today's Mexican-American citizens (even the ones who don't approve of illegal immigration) are descended from people who just walked or drove across the border to work on farms, the railroad, in construction. That's the way it's been done for generations. We keep offering them jobs, they're going to keep coming. And today, we're in the negative on immigration rates, but never mind that. We've had prop. 187 and a recession and a tea party and a buffoon of a candidate, so suddenly we want a wall. I feel the way jenis40 does, and that would be a better use of that money.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 7, 2016 18:49:32 GMT
@mytnice said: Building a wall is reminiscent of the Berlin Wall, the Great Wall ... we've been here for nearly 250 years and we've never needed a wall. We get along like friends with our neighbors to both the north and the south. Till now, apparently. It's also silly because it wouldn't work. It's too expensive (and no, Mexico isn't going to pay for it, no matter how many times Trump says they will), it would take too long, there are places along the border where you can't even build a wall. Once it was built, there would be tunnels underneath it or airplanes above it or holes blasted through it. It would strangle the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico. And then who's going to pay for the wall between the U.S. and Canada? Because don't think people aren't pouring over that border, too. The fact is, "illegal aliens" (I hate that term) contribute more to our economy than they take away from it. Despite Trump's claims to the contrary and a few high-profile exceptions, undocumented immigrants have a lower crime rate than regular citizens (surprise! they are trying not to get caught!). And for all the people who say "but we welcome legal immigrants," please understand that there has been almost no provision in U.S. immigration law for lawful immigration of unskilled/low-skilled workers from Latin America. So we have a long tradition of quietly encouraging and accepting these undocumented immigrants. Most of today's Mexican-American citizens (even the ones who don't approve of illegal immigration) are descended from people who just walked or drove across the border to work on farms, the railroad, in construction. That's the way it's been done for generations. We keep offering them jobs, they're going to keep coming. And today, we're in the negative on immigration rates, but never mind that. We've had prop. 187 and a recession and a tea party and a buffoon of a candidate, so suddenly we want a wall. I feel the way jenis40 does, and that would be a better use of that money. I'd prefer we make it easier for people to come here legally and/or give them a way to pay payroll taxes legally even if they don't have a green card. ETA added bonus of making it legal for them to be here: they'll be less willing to work for lower wages, which means more and better-paying job opportunities for American citizens. Which in turn may even mean less immigration.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 17:30:54 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2016 19:24:57 GMT
I feel the way jenis40 does, and that would be a better use of that money. I'd prefer we make it easier for people to come here legally and/or give them a way to pay payroll taxes legally even if they don't have a green card. ETA added bonus of making it legal for them to be here: they'll be less willing to work for lower wages, which means more and better-paying job opportunities for American citizens. Which in turn may even mean less immigration. Living where I live I have seen how undocumented workers have driven down the wages for both construction and landscaping jobs over the decades as employers have found ways to skip the part where they are suppose verify if potential employees are here legally or not. But I do believe that once these folks get some sort of legal status those low wages employers like will become a thing of the past. My guess is the unions will spring up in all industries that have large populations of undocumented workers. Or have a resurgence with all those new potential members. I sometimes think the reason the Republicans have been so against immigration reform was because of the loss of cheap workers for employers like Trump.
|
|
|
Post by OntarioScrapper on Jun 7, 2016 20:29:41 GMT
@mytnice said: Building a wall is reminiscent of the Berlin Wall, the Great Wall ... we've been here for nearly 250 years and we've never needed a wall. We get along like friends with our neighbors to both the north and the south. Till now, apparently. It's also silly because it wouldn't work. It's too expensive (and no, Mexico isn't going to pay for it, no matter how many times Trump says they will), it would take too long, there are places along the border where you can't even build a wall. Once it was built, there would be tunnels underneath it or airplanes above it or holes blasted through it. It would strangle the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico. And then who's going to pay for the wall between the U.S. and Canada? Because don't think people aren't pouring over that border, too. The fact is, "illegal aliens" (I hate that term) contribute more to our economy than they take away from it. Despite Trump's claims to the contrary and a few high-profile exceptions, undocumented immigrants have a lower crime rate than regular citizens (surprise! they are trying not to get caught!). And for all the people who say "but we welcome legal immigrants," please understand that there has been almost no provision in U.S. immigration law for lawful immigration of unskilled/low-skilled workers from Latin America. So we have a long tradition of quietly encouraging and accepting these undocumented immigrants. Most of today's Mexican-American citizens (even the ones who don't approve of illegal immigration) are descended from people who just walked or drove across the border to work on farms, the railroad, in construction. That's the way it's been done for generations. We keep offering them jobs, they're going to keep coming. And today, we're in the negative on immigration rates, but never mind that. We've had prop. 187 and a recession and a tea party and a buffoon of a candidate, so suddenly we want a wall. Prime Minister Trudeau has already stated there will be no wall between us and the USA. So I guess is Trump somehow in some alternate universe because the President of the USA, Trump is paying it for himself.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 7, 2016 20:35:30 GMT
I think that understanding your spouse's politics is important, but the importance of agreement between spouses is more dependent on how political either/both spouses are.
I have a niece who works in politics. Her husband works in politics. Agreement on voting for Trump or not is extremely important in their understanding of each other and I could imagine it being an enormous problem for them if one went counter to the work that they both do.
I have relatives who scream loudly when even the names of politicians they disagree with are mentioned casually. It's a selfish response that doesn't allow for a difference of opinion. Divorce may start to look pretty good if you had a difference of opinion and had to live with a loud spouse like that.
I have other relatives who keep their politics close to the vest. They aren't active in any campaigns and don't freely give their opinions. If they had a spouse who was for the other candidate but also kept it pretty low key, I can't imagine it being a problem at all even if the candidate was as widely hated as Trump or Clinton.
I think it may be a whole lot easier having friends - and even family - with exact opposite political views than having that difference with a spouse.
For example, if you are voting for Trump for his Supreme Court nominations, negotiation ability, border security, whatever... AND are disgusted with the things Trump has said, it would be great if your spouse didn't label you as a misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, idiotic bigot since that would only emphasize to you how little they listen to you or how thoroughly they dismiss your opinions and concerns.
You may be able to forgive or distance yourself from friends or other relatives when it comes to those rants far easier than you can from a spouse.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 7, 2016 20:47:52 GMT
If at all possible, I'd like to vote for a third party candidate. I'm not sure if one will be on the ballot in my state, and it's beyond discouraging that in every election, voting third party means you're essentially throwing your vote away. I think if Bernie had run Independent or on a third party ticket, he might just have been the first viable third-party candidate. That's an interesting idea. Of course, he would have been on zero debate stages, and his media coverage would have been nonexistent..... so I wonder how much support he would have gotten.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jun 7, 2016 22:18:00 GMT
Personally I think it would be a colossal waste of money and would not be effective. How many drug and people smuggling tunnels have been found on the border? I would prefer those dollars be put to use hiring and training more border patrol agents and enforcing the laws already on the books. And no I don't think Mexico is going to pay to build the wall despite Trump's assurances that it will. If we actually secured that border, I'd be happy to never hear of building the wall again. It's not a wall that matters here, it's national security To me, anyway. lucyg - And I never, ever, ever, even the teensiest bit ever, associated a wall between the US and Mexico with the Berlin Wall. That's a stretch I never would have believed if I hadn't just read it here.
|
|