Truth is truth....and this is not truth, or is at least intentionally misleading.
As mentioned above, the parties totally switched positions with the Republican Southern strategy. She's either ignorant, or intentionally misleading.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

What rich earn their money with "hard" work? Few if any, they more often make it by paying hard workers less than they are due, often by contract. (At least that's certainly true for many, including Trump)
Killing babies, nope. Embryos aren't babies. Babies can live outside a womb. >99.999% of abortions don't meet that requirement, and the few that do are only allowed to save the mother's life.
Oppressing business owners, nope, just stopping them from abusing their workers, customers, and environment. That only oppresses oppressors, and I'm more than fine with that considering how they act when unrestrained.
Allowing illegal immigrants in....nope, but offering far more work visas, absolutely. "Proper vetting" is meaningless, unless you agree to use the term as intended by the intelligence community, in which case democrats are totally on board...but not with a Muslim ban until Trump can figure something out, that's never....and totally unconstitutional.
Get rid of capitalism....did you see their candidate? Even Sanders didn't want that, but he was too hostile to unfettered capitalism for democrats....just duh.

Why do you see people mentioning the switch? Because you, and this woman, are trying to pretend it didn't happen....but it clearly, unequivocally, undeniably did. Take some American history and you'll learn.

Edit: what's funny is, had there been no southern strategy and swap of ideals as she and you imply, democrats would be your party, supporting all the right wing strategies you support.

The credit card companies get 2-4% of every single purchase made with every single card. They really couldn't give a shit if some pay on time, and others keep a balance. The consumer end of the equation is peanuts. That's why, if you ask, they'll lock your card for a few months and not charge interest while you pay it down.

Recently, they've changed it so they charge 2-4% for refunds as well. So if you buy something for $100, Visa holds onto $3. If you come back and get your money back, Visa holds onto ANOTHER $3. So your favourite store just got reamed for $6, with no actual purchase being final.

As I said, I did not mean the only argument. I should have been more clear. At least I can admit it.

Ha!!! Muphry was spot on. Mea culpa.
"Donald J Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims coming to the United States....."
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=viDffWUjcBA

Close enough, or do I need to find a video of him saying the words "Muslim ban"? From what I'm reading, any videos or statements he made with those words have been removed from his websites, so may be hard to find.

As I've said before, not banning ALL Muslims (yet) does not hide the clear intent any better than the targeted banning of Israelis hid the Jewish ban for some other countries.
Trump publicly stated that Christians from the "banned" countries, including Syria, would essentially be exempt and given preferential treatment, another legal indicator the ban is targeted at Muslims, not nationalities. I'll look to see if I can find a link to that.
http://time.com/4652367/donald-trump-refugee-policy-christians/

Obama never halted immigration from them, he implemented stringent vetting, but didn't revoke any visas like Trump, and extreme vetting has been the norm for years, it's not some new Trump idea requiring a travel ban until he figures out what's happening.

Saying he (Jim) didn't make an argument, when his argument is actually one of those offered in court against the ban, defends Trump's position, therefore him, intentionally or not.

If we are going to start pointing fingers at countries, almost every single country in the world has used immigrant labor to keep itself functional. You can't single out the USA for relying on it, and as I mentioned, the USA is far from being the only country starting to realize that illegal immigration has more negatives than positives.

I have never hired an illegal. It is possible that they US government should increase work visas, I would not care as long as people were here legally. This also isn't 'The Jungle', I am pretty sure that Upton Sinclair would laugh if you compared the living conditions and quality of life that our current immigrants have compared to then.

I disagree with your example, this is not a situation where the people did not have other options. They could have applied to come here legally, choosing not to do so because it is far easier to ignore the law does not make them addicts to a chemical substance.

@Mordhaus

Except that the United States has for many decades relied on undocumented immigrants as a source of low-wage labor to do the jobs most Americans don't want. Now all of a sudden, after using their cheap labor to keep failing American agriculture and manufacturing alive you just want to yank the carpet out from under them?

Most of the people now up in arms about the "scourge" of illegal immigrants have HIRED illegals at one time or another (in the case of Trump, I'm sure he still employs dozens of hundreds). The US Government could simply have issued more work visas and enforced the rules more closely, but why do that when your buddies can charge sub-minimum wage and stiff their employees on the paycheck whenever they feel like it without fear of repercussion? Instead they wink and nod, punishing the immigrants occasionally, but rarely (if ever) touching the businesses who KNEW they were employing illegals.

It's like ignoring the drug dealers and traffickers for decades, then suddenly deciding drug USERS are a scourge who must be punished.

My mistake, the first time is a misdemeanor, the second is a felony. Yes, there is a gaping hole in the visa setup. I would hope it is looked into as well when we go over the necessary steps to fix immigration.

Last I checked, illegal entry is a misdemeanor.

Ans it's only the entry itself. If you enter legally on a temporary visa, and don't leave, that's not a crime. But you will likely not get another visa should you leave.

I get that it's a 'crime', but as a matter of legal seriousness, it's on par with jaywalking or disturbing the peace.

Not that legality and morality are in any way connected, so don't take my statement as anything more than its face value.

(As an aside : As a libertarian, as a matter of principle, I have no problem with people coming and going and having whatever relations with whoever consents to have them. It is, after all, none of my business.)

-scheherazade

so i have been watching this argument over the "ban" all over my facebook.people really like their little "memes" that offer no real criticism,nor any context,they simply display that persons particular bias.the discussion over this "ban" was not my issue.my issue was with the utter lack of depth of understanding.the evident laziness of those who got up on their little soapbox and sanctimoniously,and self-righteously moralized over a situation that they maybe..maaaybe..spent a total of five minutes on.

until finally my head exploded,and i went into hulk-mode.this was my rant,that i now share with you all:

jesus fucking christ...am i reading these comments correctly?

ok,lets put a little clarity into the mix,shall we?

first of all its not actually a "ban" but an extension to vette refugees further.

sounds reasonable right?

but what is NOT mentioned is that the majority of these refugees have already BEEN vetted,and the process has taken up to two years already.

so stop wetting your pants over brown people who happen to be muslim.

secondly,
let us take a look at the countries whose refugees are being "banned".

notice anything?

each and every one of those countries the american military is deployed in.the CIA has been fighting a proxy war in syria for five fucking YEARS.obama expanded operations into:sudan,somolia,yemen,syria and jordan (another proxy war executed by our radical saudi arabia buddies,who just happen to hate america and promote the most radical of muslim interpretations:wahhabism.they spend BILLIONS of their oil money to open madrasas across the region to light the match of radical islam)

so we,along with russia,turkey and other nations,are bombing the SHIT out of these countries,therefore creating the refugee crisis in the first place,and then we turn around an slap a "ban" on them.

oh,i'm sorry,not really a ban,just an extension to vette them further,because god knows we need more than two years to find out if someone is radicalized.

hypocrisy much america?

thirdly,
and this should make us all VERY nervous,but corporate media has YET to address this little turd nugget.a federal court slapped an injunction on this "ban",because it was not done through the proper channels,but rather through executive order.

and DHS ignored the injunction.
IGNORED it,because who needs "checks and balances" right?
who needs an institution,which was put in place to uphold the law and to restrict a sitting president from over-stepping his authority?
right?

and the fact that the DHS,which is under the DoD,outright ignored a direct order from a federal judge to cease and desist,because trump had overstepped his authority by attempting to use executive orders to circumvent the law.,and this was just an injunction,which really just means "stop!until we further review"...the DHS ignored the injunction.

lets ignore the fact that trump gutted the very agency that would have been the first to challenge his executive order "banning" these refugees.trump literally gutted all the high ranking officials at the state dept.

his press secretary said,and this is fucking laughable..they resigned..ALL of them?
all of them just stood up and resigned?

so it came down to a judge to hold trump accountable,which he did by injunction and an entire dept ignored that federal judges ruling.

now let us look at the countries left off that list.

notice anything?

well well well...would you look at that.
not only do they all purchase large amounts of weapons and military apparatus from us.not only do have they have large reserves of oil that our american companies make a shit ton of money from,but lookie here..trump has business in every singly one of those countries.

coincidence?

oh,and lets not overlook the fact that by executive order trump opened the door to have steve bannon on the national security council!
an unqualified,and with zero experience white nationalist is now on the national security council.

this is unprecedented!

but who cares right?
who needs those protocols,or checks and balances right?

trump is slowly creating his own tiny cabal of extreme loyalists and you people are wetting your pants over some brown people who lost everything,and have spent TWO FUCKING YEARS to find refuge?

this isnt the behavior of a president.
this is the behavior of a king.

yes,other presidents have implemented bans.
this is not a new thing.
what IS new,and some of you nimrods are either willingly,or unwittingly ignoring,is that THOSE bans were in direct response to the US being threatened by a particular group,and THOSE bans had the approval of congress..not a fucking piece of paper that king trump signed.

does america need to reform it's immigration policies?
yes,most certainly.

do we need to have an system in place to help assimilate refugees from syria beyond vetting?

of course,all we have to do is look at germany and see what happens when you allow refugees into your country without proper preparation and a system in place to see just how horrible it can get.

does this mean that every muslim refugee is somehow a terrorist?

well,just look at dearborn michigan.the largest muslim community in america and tell me how many terrorist came from that city? how many muslims were radicalized in dearborn?

is radicalized islam a problem?
yes,of course,who would deny this?

but the causes of radicalization are well understood,and have been well documented,and it is NOT only muslims who engage in terrorism.

really folks,before you start making declarations of certitude without having even the most basic knowledge how our government functions,you need to shut the fuck up.

and for FUCK sakes pick up a book once in awhile,and stop being a gaggle of fucking bed wetters.
jesus...you little fags piss yourselves every time a muslim is even mentioned in conversation.

oh,and before one of you tough guys even think about talking shit to me.
1.i am ex military.so go fuck yourself.
2.my JOB is to debunk bullshit stories and research politics and offer analysis.

so you better think twice before you go off half cocked,because my comment hurt your wittle feewings.your comments are ignorant and they are so lacking in the basic understanding of how this government operates that the only feeling you should having right now is:SHAME.

*edit:this is not directed towards anyone in particular here,but this single focus on trumps ill-thought "ban",and how he did so in such a broad,and general wave of a pen stroke that affected even those HAD gone through the process to get their green cards,visas etc etc is simply buying into the corporate narrative.

and then NOT consider the implications of a gutted state department,the loss of the attorney general and the defiant,disobedience of the DHS in regards to a federal judges injunction.

is unforgivable in it's ignorance.

the implications ALONE should make us all worried.
very very worried.
because it appears trump is reshaping our government into his own little fiefdom of loyalists,willing to defy the everyday governmental operations of checks and balances.

trump is consolidating and concentrating his power by creating his own little cabal of loyalists.that motherfucker has ALREADY put his candidacy on the ballot for 2020.now accepting donations to the highest bidder! feel free to purchase your own piece of the american presidency!

on sale NOW! so act fast! positions are limited!
*prices may vary according to your status and where you reside on the class scale.poor people can simply fuck off.

i realize this speculation on my part,
and i could be wrong.
god..please let me be wrong.

I already defined bigoted farther up the thread.

But again, back to the Oxford:

Bigot: A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
Bigotry: Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Even dictionary.com gets it right this time. I don't know where you got your definition of "bigot".

1) It wasn't any of those though.
2) It wasn't bigoted innuendo though.
3) Not wanting to allow radicalised muslims who will engage in criminal behaviour into your country (which is what this is about) is not bigoted (just as you aren't considered bigoted for not wanting criminals engaging in criminal behaviour in the community). Making a temporary ban until you can institute a more rigorous vetting process is not bigoted. I.e. he accepts non-radicalised Muslims and their views, but they will have temporary visa restrictions until a better vetting system is in place.
4) Assuming the worst about a group is not bigotry. Being intolerant of the group's views is.

No, since they aren't bigotry, they couldn't be used as examples in a dictionary.

Saying disparaging things about a group is not bigotry. E.g. someone could say "I fucking hate Australians, they suck". That's not bigotry. Or, "All Australian's are dicks". Also not bigotry. Now on the other hand if they said, "I don't accept the views or opinions of Australians", then that is bigotry.

Sadly this seems very plausible after the series I just watched on Netflix , Border Security, Australia's First Line. If people think we treat incoming people rough, they should watch that show. Almost every episode they show some poor sad sack that committed a crime or something 20+ years ago that just wants to come and visit. Most of the time the response is gtfo and don't come back for 3 years, except for one guy who did 12 years in prison for drug trafficking. He just happened to be Sugar Shane Mosley's trainer, so they were like "We should by all rights deny his visa, but we have to weigh the benefit to Australia's citizens that might have bought tickets to the fight....yep, let him in." Or they have a sniffer scanner that picks up what seems to be infinitesimal amounts of any sort of drug residue, which means you get body searched and they go through every thing you have with a fine toothed comb.

I turned to my wife and said, "We are never going to Australia." She asked why and I told her that every bit of the US cash anyone comes into contact with is inundated with multiple types of drug residues. We would probably show up and get cavity searched for 14 different types of drugs. Anyway, after watching the show, I felt it was clear that the government of Australia is very comfortable with the "Come here, spend shitloads of money, and then gtfo because we don't want you here" attitude.

He won my state's primary.

My town he had huge black , guatemalan support. My neighbor legally immigrated from Guatemala during the 90s civil war, used tourist visa, then found work who signed to sponsor his h-1A temporary work visa then applied and took naturalization test and now a legal voting taxpayer.

He told me about the over 400 rapists fled Juarez into US and it's a nonstop stream as the Femicide continues and cartels own the governments he hates Mexicans with an extreme passion due to something bad happened in Guatemala long ago he won't share but he's super Trump supporter and campaigns door to door. It's actually quite inspiring and his English isn't perfect but he hates political correctness speech infringement, claims we are near the levels Guatamala was at just before civil war. He had a son that was executed over a joke in early 90s. He as tons of stories, I old him he should definitely write a book. He'd probably make a bit of money

Yeah, I don't get the whole right wing reaction to the refugees... aside from hatred of anyone that isn't their particular brand of Christianity. I mean, John Oliver barely touched the main point that it is far easier just to get a visa and come in. You'll be here much sooner and with less hassle. Refusing them and turning them away is more fire power for ISIS, the Taliban and others to radicalize more young Muslims, as they can point out "see, they don't even want peaceful Muslims, they are against us all, join us and fight them".... which is of course one of the stated goals of ISIS anyhow.

I wonder if insulting the sponsors is the best way to get them to rescind their support. Also, how come Visa got off easy?

Nailed it dude!

The only angle I feel hasn't really come up so far is the idea that private enterprise and public governance could easily be regarded as two manifestations of the same "real" social dynamic: Establishment/challenger (or master/slave if you want to get fully Hegelian about it)

Like, why do we even develop governmental systems in the 1st place?

I have yet to conceive a better answer than: "to curb the destructive excesses of private wealth/power."

Why would we champion personal freedom? I would say: "to curb the destructive excesses of public wealth/power".

Or something to that effect at the very least. The idea of a society with either absolute personal, or absolute collective sovereignty seems hellish to me. And probably unworkable to boot!

There seems to me a tendency in the history of societies for these two types of power to dance either side of equilibrium as the real power struggle unfolds i.e. between reigning establishment and challenger power groups/paradigms.

Right now the establishment is both economic and governmental. The corruption is mutually supporting. Corporations buy and control governments, governments facilitate corporations ruling the market and continuing to be able to buy them.

The circle jerk @blankfist IMHO is between government and private dynasty and moreover I strongly believe that in a vacuum, one will always create the other.

Pure collectivism will naturally breed an individualist challenger and visa versa.

People are at their best I think when balancing self interest and altruism. Too much of either tends to hurt others around you and diminish ones capacity to grow and adapt. (being nice is no good if you lack the will and capacity to get shit done)

It seems natural that the ideal way of organising society would always balance collective state power, with private personal power.

Libertarianism (even the superior non anarchist version) defangs the state too much IMHO. Some collectivist projects such as education, scientific research and exploration I think tend to be better served by public direction. But more importantly I expect the state to referee the market, just as I expect public transparency to referee the state.

Total crowbar separation between the three: public officials cannot legally own or control private wealth and cannot live above standard of their poorest citizens. Private citizens cannot inherit wealth legally, only earn and create it. The state cannot legally hold any secret or perform any function of government outside public view unless it is to prepare sensitive legal proceedings (which must then be disclosed in full when actioned).

In the age of global communications this kind of transparency may for the first time be a workable solution (it's already near impossible to keep a lid on most political scandals and this is very early days). There is also the possibility of a steadily de-monetised market as crowdfunding and crowdsourcing production models start to become more advanced and practical than traditional market dynamics. e.g. kickstarter style collective investment in place of classical entrepreneurial investment.

The benefits and dangers of both capitalism and socialism here would be trending towards diffusion amongst the populace.

And then there's the whole Meritocracy vs Democracy thing, but that's really getting into another topic and I've probably already gone on too long now.

Much love