welshbairn Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Maureen Maloney spoke out today against Gov Kasich, who plans an illegal immigrant amnesty within 100 days of taking office. Her son was killed by an illegal immigrant drunk driver. He was not killed by the initial, accident, but died after the driver drug him a quarter mile while fleeing. This was despite people running up to the car and pounding on it so he would stop. This illegal immigrant had previous convictions for drunk driving, assaulting police officers, and domestic violence, but was released back into our society each time. “Let him (Kasich) come visit me and let me take him to my son’s grave. My son was a college graduate. He graduated college just three months before he was killed. He worked going through college, worked part time to help pay for his tuition, he graduated debt-free because he helped by for his tuition. And he had just got his first real job and he was killed. He was killed by somebody who had a criminal record and who had drank a case of beer earlier in the day. [Maloney pauses] So, let [Kasich] come meet with us family members, and let him come visit the graves of our children and then let me see what he thinks about it. Because I don’t know how anybody with any kind of heart or compassion could make that decision.†“Donald Trump has gone around the country and has met with groups of family members that have lost somebody to an illegal alien and he never publicized it. He met with us… in a private meeting, and he kept it private. He kept it private. The only way the media may have heard anything about it is if one of us happened to have mentioned it. He gained so much of my respect for that because other politicians that have spoke with me over the last four years—it’s a photo-op or a press-op, it’s always an opportunity for them to be in the limelight: [a chance for them to say] ‘see what I’m doing.’ And then you don’t hear from them again. And Donald Trump did not do that. And it’s not just those of us who lost a family member—he’s doing it with veterans and other people around the country too.†You'd save a lot more lives by building walls around predominately white American communities, or any community, than building a wall on the Mexican border. The percentage of immigrants, legal and illegal, convicted of non immigration offences is far lower than that of the "native" population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Republicans have been trying to get rid of that for years. The Obama administration has made it a special point to go after the taxes of American citizens living abroad, even duel citizens who just happened to be born here on accident or who have lived overseas for decades. They passed new regulations making it so that ordinary overseas Americans in many countries can't even get basic financial services like a checking account because the entire banking system has decided to stop doing business with Americans in order to avoid the regulations. It really is ridiculous, and it's why the Obama administration has brought record numbers of Americans renouncing their citizenship. That is just made up nonsense. Neither side are seriously interested in repealing this and the republicans actually changed the law to name and shame those that renounced their citizenship. I also believe that the cost to renounce has been quadrupled in the last couple of years from what was already a more than doubling in 2013. There is also the Expatriation Tax that has existed since the 60s (IRC s877) It may be free country but leaving it is VERY expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yank Mike Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 You'd save a lot more lives by building walls around predominately white American communities, or any community, than building a wall on the Mexican border. The percentage of immigrants, legal and illegal, convicted of non immigration offences is far lower than that of the "native" population. Ok, I used to say this line when I was for open borders. It's wrong for couple reasons. The US is really two countries when it comes to crime rates. The 100% black areas are amongst the most violent places on the face of the earth. The majority white areas are slightly more violent than the UK, but there are many, many states where the white areas are much less violent than the UK. We mostly sorted this situation out from an everyday social perspective so that people know which areas to avoid if they want to stay in areas that are northwestern Europe safe. And the really bad criminals mostly stick to violence within their territory. It's obviously a huge public policy problem for the black people that live in those dangerous areas, but that's a separate issue. The immigrants are not moving into black areas, so they are greatly increasing the danger faced by the population that lives where they are going. I'm not in any more danger of becoming a crime victim than person X in Scotland. But if 20,000 Mexican immigrants moved to my county then I would be in more danger. Your statistic ignores the 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanic crime rate, because those people are not immigrants. It's much, much higher than the native white crime rate. Mexico and Central America are violent, violent places where large swaths of territory is controlled by organized crime rather than the government. And I don't mean like the ghettos of the US, where we try our best to maintain some level of control. I mean like where the government has completely given up trying to impose law and order. You can argue that this is because there are more criminals and that Hispanic society is more tolerant of corruption. This has implications for our society as we become majority Hispanic over the next few decades. It's really a radical experiment to see if Anglo institutions and culture can survive this influx. I've come to the conclusion that would shouldn't risk it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yank Mike Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 That's a real myth - towards the end of their lives MLK and Malcolm X began to move in different directions. MLK was much more inclined to the view that direct physical action would be required whereas Malcolm X (almost certainly because of his fallout with the Nation of Islam) was moving towards King's previous non-violent protest position. Yes, I'm away of this. If both had lived to old age it's possible that MLK would be mocked and despised by conservative society like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton while Malcolm X was seen as a reasonable person. However, both were assassinated and we can never know what would have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mortar Bored Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Mike you really are a racist, aren't you? Differentiating crime rates by colour without looking at the social conditions within those areas and the causes behind that is pure racism. It's pretty well known that affluent areas have a lower crime rate than poorer areas. For instance, the millionaire area in Lagos had a crime rate not 1% of the average crime rate in the city. Is this a race thing or a poverty and circumstance thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Mike you really are a racist, aren't you? Differentiating crime rates by colour without looking at the social conditions within those areas and the causes behind that is pure racism. It's pretty well known that affluent areas have a lower crime rate than poorer areas. For instance, the millionaire area in Lagos had a crime rate not 1% of the average crime rate in the city. Is this a race thing or a poverty and circumstance thing? He also talks about the American democratic system like it's a good thing. The system is fucked beyond repair and has been for some time. The idea that protesters should stay quiet and vote to bring about change is laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mortar Bored Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Yes, I'm away of this. If both had lived to old age it's possible that MLK would be mocked and despised by conservative society like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton while Malcolm X was seen as a reasonable person. However, both were assassinated and we can never know what would have happened. What's really surprising is that the Nation of Islam, Malcolm X, MLK & even Rosa Parks weren't completely violent in their protests. Imagine the republican south red-neck population if you tried to take their sub-machine guns away! Also, the right to bear arms only seems to apply to white folks......not an unemployed black guy in Detroit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yank Mike Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Mike you really are a racist, aren't you? Differentiating crime rates by colour without looking at the social conditions within those areas and the causes behind that is pure racism. It's pretty well known that affluent areas have a lower crime rate than poorer areas. For instance, the millionaire area in Lagos had a crime rate not 1% of the average crime rate in the city. Is this a race thing or a poverty and circumstance thing? No. I treat every individual I come across as an individual. But to argue that culture does not play a big role in violence is to ignore reality. I grew up and currently live again in the so-called "big white ghetto." By any economic measure we are as poor as the black areas. A lot of the same problems exist like drug addiction and single parent families. But the murder rate is comparable to rich white areas (despite the fact that this is ground zero for the so-called "gun culture" and you rarely meet anybody who is not a gun owner) and government corruption is not tolerated as a fixture of everyday life like in the poor minority areas. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367903/white-ghetto-kevin-d-williamson It's also hard to argue against the idea that Canada and the USA are better places to live because of the culture and institutions brought by the people who settled here vs the Spanish and Native American mix that exists in Central America. I believe that it is possible to Anglicize the Hispanics in America outside of a few spots that have been especially hard hit, just like we did with the Italians, Poles, etc, but not if this immigration wave becomes a never ending tsunami of people. There are literally hundreds of millions of people in Latin America that will move to the US over the rest of my lifetime if we threw open our borders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Mexico and Central America are violent, violent places where large swaths of territory is controlled by organized crime rather than the government. The Central American gangs were mainly formed in the USA and the Mexican cartels source their guns in America due to the laissez faire gun laws. The USA is the country that has been exporting criminals and guns through its southern border, maybe the USA should be paying for the wall to protect their southern neighbours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 I grew up and currently live again in Arbroath and my claim to fame is puddle drinking. My theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 My theory. I don't think so, unless Donny's got two aliases going at once... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 I don't think so, unless Donny's got two aliases going at once... You're probably right, but the sequence of avatars from Stalin, Hitler to Jihadi John and the stuff taken from loony American bloggers seems to fit a pattern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Trump has support of over 50% of Republican voters nationally for the first time in the latest YouGov poll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiG Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Personally, I am already preparing for Trump becoming president and then launching a bombing raid on our windfarms, particularly that one just off the coast of Aberdeen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 The montage shown on the news last night of Trump urging his supporters to 'smack em in the mouth' or 'give em a good kicking' along with his own 'I'd like to punch him in the face' type sound bites was shocking. The guy's is a f*ckin grade A mentalist! Surely the majority of Americans aren't gonna put this truly dangerous man in the Whitehouse!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 I don't think he would win if an election between him and Clinton was held today. However, I worry that if her legal problems mount up it could make a Trump victory more likely and if there is an attack on America by Jihadi nutters in the run-up to the election, it could play into his hands. The guy would easily be the most dangerous ruler of a Western power in my lifetime if he's elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Assassination of a U.S. President doesn't seem such a bad idea now does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Assassination of a U.S. President doesn't seem such a bad idea now does it? ^^^Still trying for a free Cuban holiday before Gitmo closes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 ^^^Still trying for a free Cuban holiday before Gitmo closes. I'd happily (?) spend the remainder of my days there if I could off 10 100 1000 of their most prominent citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 I'd happily (?) spend the remainder of my days there if I could off 10 100 1000 of their most prominent citizens. I'd happily (?) spend the remainder of my days there if I could off 10 100 1000 of our most prominent citizens. Noo whaurs the royals, lords, tories, Ad Lib etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.