Lil' Red

I care about it. If approval is at 50%, it makes a big difference whether disapproval is at 50% or 30%.

Ya shame on Trump for fixing the city of Chicago of its violence death disease ridden city it has been past 8 years where Chicago native ex President Obama ignored it.... How dare that Trump Shouldn't we wait until we actually see some improvement before we praise Trump for fixing Chicago?

It's a much harder process for individuals that aren't married to an American citizen. I know someone from New Zealand going to school here that concluded his only shot at American citizenship was through marriage because of how slim his chances were in the green card lottery system.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. However, I haven't seen many accusations of Trump being anti-semitic. I think those are mostly directed at Bannon.

I'm looking for some extra cash Yeah, I'd like to get in on this deal.

Fair points dude. In terms of challenges with illegal immigration, I'd refer to the criminal element that is an aspect of our immigration issues. Here in the SW, we have big issues with people crossing our borders with the primary goal to commit crimes. However, I'm not sure that a giant wall is going to solve that problem. In fact, it will likely keep those individuals out that are trying to come to this country to work and provide for their families, while the "bad guys" will simply continue to circumvent the wall and build bigger and longer tunnels. I actually look at the wall similar to if people want to ban guns. If you build a wall, the bad guys will still get in. If you ban guns, the bad guys will still get guns. Neither of these issues are as simple as people want to make them. Similar story with drugs. In fact, legalizing some drugs would do more to prevent bad guys getting in than a wall.

Pence is wrong within the normal parameters. Plus, as an added benefit, for those who want to move on from this administration, Pence would be much more predictable in office and have a much harder time appealing to disaffected moderates. The disaffected largely went to Trump because they felt no one else cared about them and he represented an opportunity to blow up the system that had forgotten them. He openly called for their vote to go shake things up. Pence doesn't have that quality. If he goes full blown social conservative and starts churning out religious freedom laws, the same thing will happen that happened in Indiana. People would feel discriminated against, it will hurt the economy, his popularity will sink, and you can tie those as an electoral anchor around his neck. You can also undo the damage of a Pence a lot easier than an economic collapse or huge foreign policy blunders Trump could create. I agree. My main concern with Pence is that the public will be so relieved about having a president that is wrong within the normal parameters that they will not be as energized to fight his more insane policies as hard as they do with Trump. I think he'd still be a definite upgrade though.

Well...I'm conservative and at one time was a Republican. I believe the Republican party has lost it's way and isn't something I can vote for. But...your post is out in la la land on the subject. This would be akin to me claiming Obama is Muslim and wants install Sharia law in the US and Democrats have been planning this for 40 years when they first brought him from Kenya as a child prodigy to ultimately destroy America. Except, there are stories from CNN and other sites where Republicans are actually talking about doing many of the things I mentioned. Legalizing religious based discrimination: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/17/senate-republicans-zeroing-religious-freedom-bills/ Burn the American flag, go to jail: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/29/politics/donald-trump-flag-burning-penalty-proposal/index.html So you are for the first amendment ..but not really? The first article is pro-14th amendment and the second is pro-1st amendment. I don't see your point. I guess I see the texas tribune article and the cnn piece both as 1st amendment issues. How is it a 14th issue? The article is about laws that would grant individuals the right to discriminate against individuals in the LBGTQIA community. The 14th amendment prohibits states from passing laws that allow for targeted discrimination and was used by SCOTUS to declare bans on gay marriage unconstitutional.

Well...I'm conservative and at one time was a Republican. I believe the Republican party has lost it's way and isn't something I can vote for. But...your post is out in la la land on the subject. This would be akin to me claiming Obama is Muslim and wants install Sharia law in the US and Democrats have been planning this for 40 years when they first brought him from Kenya as a child prodigy to ultimately destroy America. Except, there are stories from CNN and other sites where Republicans are actually talking about doing many of the things I mentioned. Legalizing religious based discrimination: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/17/senate-republicans-zeroing-religious-freedom-bills/ Burn the American flag, go to jail: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/29/politics/donald-trump-flag-burning-penalty-proposal/index.html So you are for the first amendment ..but not really? The first article is pro-14th amendment and the second is pro-1st amendment. I don't see your point.

My question is, what are you hoping to accomplish with these broad-brushed accusations? If your goal is to advance LBGTQIA rights, you are only hurting your cause by vilifying all Republicans regardless of their views on LBGTQIA rights. You are promoting the same us vs them mentality that is largely responsible for the discrimination that you are fighting against.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article131227599.html The Senate Judiciary Committee letter - PDF: http://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/article131327329.ece/binary/ICE_Letter.pdf Of course none of that info justifies an immigration ban, but to say no crimes or murders have come at the hands of immigrants is just not true. The quote was specific to refugees.

Sometimes we need to put the security of this nation before other countries. I lock my doors at night not because I hate everyone outside of my house but because I love the people in my house. Guaranteed had Obama gone through executing this 90 day ban on the 7 countries HE had addressed as having terroristic ties 2 years ago, people would be praising him. But no since it's Trump, he's a psycho, bigot, racist, ex..... Have you considered that this ban might make us less safe? ISIS is reportedly celebrating the "blessed ban" because it helps further their narrative that we are at war with Islam and it also shows that their terrorist attacks are making us afraid which could help bolster their recruitment. Given that individuals from these countries have killed zero people on US soil over the past 30 years, I don't think diminishing the negligible risk of attacks from these countries is worth empowering ISIS.