OT: The next President of the United States: ★★★ Donald Trump ★★★

[Mech Engineer]

Is is true Australia has one of the most stringent immigration policies around? That you take in only specialized people deemed needed in the economy (doctors, scientists, etc) while shipping anyone else who arrives back to essentially offshore detention camps? Is there outcry about this at large or is it deemed a sensible strategy there? From what I've read both major parties support this.

I couldn’t tell you if it’s one of the most stringent immigration policies as I’m ignorant to other countries and their policies, though imo, it’s absurdly harsh and inhumane. It’s not as black and white as you suggest – though no doubt we have some screening that occurs. The offshore detention centers are typically reserved for those who come here via boat, which is a big problem if you listen to the government.

To me, it’s ridiculous and shameful how we treat these refugees. They’re fleeing their countries and risking their lives jumping on these terrible boats that could sink at any moment, all for a chance to just live a normal life. If they survive the trip, they’re often caught and marooned on an offshore island. It’s horrible.

Racism and xenophobia is certainly an issue here, one that is growing. It’s continually swept under the rug and our leaders continue to suggest we tolerate and not racist, but that’s bullsh*t. How history towards our indigenious people, even to this day, suggests otherwise.

It all boils down to the economy as human beings. If people are doing good, they will welcome people from anywhere. But, when families struggle, these type of issues become bigger and immigrants become scapegoats.

A lot of people think like Trump. When Trump says the New York/NJ terrorist(a muslim) is getting better healthcare than veterans, it connects with a lot of people. But, he wouldn't have said the same thing if this was some white guy committing that same activity.

Immigration to USA is kind of different than immigration to Europe. Europe colonized many countries and IMO, have some kind of obligation to take some people from some countries. But, the US in general has never done that even though people argue that is what they did in Iraq, Vietnam etc...

The challenge when countries just take the best brains from these poor countries is not only are you taking away their talent but also enriching your society. You are basically putting that poor country in more chaos.

[TheSuzerain]

Let's just collectively stop engaging League Circles.

[League Circles]

He was accused by 8 women of inappropriate sexual conduct bordering on assault. He has made numerous abusive comments about women's appearance solely on the basis of disagreeing with him. His ex-wife claimed that she raped him in sealed court filings (that were leaked). He stated "I can grab them by the..." You know what? You can help those who are willfully ignorant.

All of that could be true (or untrue to some extent), and it still would not mean that he "hates people of color" or that women should be treated as servants of men or as sex objects (I've never fully understood what that term is supposed to mean).

IMO it's entirely possible that those sexual wrongs he may have committed were the result of incredible arrogance, horniness, and an incredibly inaccurate self image and inaccurate sense of how attracted women were to him, rather than some sort of belief that they should be serving him or treated as "sex objects". But hey, if it involves women or minorities and it's in any way negative, let's just go for the top shelf in vitriol.

I don't think you can really pull apart the 2.

I think we can and I think that civic responsibility dictates that we must.

[Rerisen]

But, the US in general has never done that even though people argue that is what they did in Iraq, Vietnam etc...

I believe the US has welcomed higher immigration from places we've been involved in militarily (S. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq), of course many coming out of those who supported or allied with us in those places.

But the larger obvious answer is we need to stop breaking and interfering in countries all over the world and creating these mass migrant crisis's, which we then owe some responsibility for. Gaddafi, bastid that he was, was something of a stabilizing force in North Africa. Once Libya fell into chaos (on top of Syria), it caused the current stream of refugees in the millions escaping to Europe. Well that's what we've got from the Bush and Clinton dynasties the last 2 decades. Maybe a bit more isolationist (less warmonger?) fortress America policy would be obvious to consider.

[Mech Engineer]

But, the US in general has never done that even though people argue that is what they did in Iraq, Vietnam etc...

But the larger obvious answer is we need to stop breaking and interfering in countries all over the world and creating these mass migrant crisis's, which we then owe some responsibility for. Gaddafi, bastid that he was, was something of a stabilizing force in North Africa. Once Libya fell into chaos (on top of Syria), it caused the current stream of refugees in the millions escaping to Europe. Well that's what we've got from the Bush and Clinton dynasties the last 2 decades. Maybe a bit more isolationist (less warmonger?) fortress America policy would be obvious to consider.

Honestly, I think all presidents come with that agenda. Didn't both W and Obama say the same thing. But, as the experts say(which is true), most of the presidents usually come looking inwards(isolationist). But, things happen like it did for Bush(9/11). I don't think the US can never get away from these issues. But, tactics can be obviously different.

A school of thought is getting rid of dictators(however messy it is) is better than getting immigrants who are fleeing these dictators as refugees. It is never smooth and takes time. But, eventually, it is a better long term solution. If not the US, who will do it? Most countries do not have the power/capacity/approval to do good things. That's why US has been looked upon as the most powerful nation.

Obviously, you cannot be involved in multiple places and doing crazy things. But, look at North Korea. Without involvement, it is getting more and more dangerous.

[TeK]

Its not a "lie" b/c you disagree.

Correct. It's a lie because he never said anything remotely like those things.

He was accused by 8 women of inappropriate sexual conduct bordering on assault. He has made numerous abusive comments about women's appearance solely on the basis of disagreeing with him. His ex-wife claimed that she raped him in sealed court filings (that were leaked). He stated "I can grab them by the..." You know what? You can help those who are willfully ignorant.

2 of those women were proven to be on the DNC payroll. I bet you didnt hear that on CNN? Sort of discredits the other ones.

Either way, I would still choose the person of poor verbiage vs. the person who takes 7 figure "donations" from middle eastern, potentially terrorist related countries. Those payments and donations do not come without a price and that is something I'm much more terrified of than someone who rates you a 6/10.

[TimRobbins]

A school of thought is getting rid of dictators(however messy it is) is better than getting immigrants who are fleeing these dictators as refugees(because they are punished). It is never smooth and takes time. But, eventually, it is a better long term solution. If not the US, who will do it? Most countries do not have the power/capacity/approval to do good things. That's why US has been looked upon as the most powerful nation.

Obviously, you cannot be involved in multiple places and doing crazy things. But, look at North Korea. Without involvement, it is getting more and more dangerous.

I really don't understand why we should "get rid of dictators"? Did anybody appoint us to be the world police? Do you really think that the US should force a liberal democracy on every country in the world? That's insane.

The US should NEVER interfere with any foreign country unless there is a clear and imminent threat to us (i.e. nuke proliferation or terrorist attack) or some massive genocide is happening where MILLIONS are being killed. Part od being a democracy is respect other types of government. If people want to live under a theocracy or any other non liberal regime, that's not for us to decide. We should have a LOT more respect to other nations' sovereignty. We should have never gotten involved in Libya, Syria or Iraq, and we should not be involved in Somalia right now.

The fact that you have power, does not mean it should be used.

[Rerisen]

A school of thought is getting rid of dictators(however messy it is) is better than getting immigrants who are fleeing these dictators as refugees.

I think the old realism was actually that dictators kept people in place, however brutally, in some kind of structured societies. Before wars in Iraq, Syria and Libya, their people weren't fleeing even though they lived in oppressive regimes.

It was only when Saddam fell and Iraq became effectively a civil war that Iraqi refugees went into the millions, the coming of ISIS, etc. And similar with Libya after Gaddafi was killed, and then the insurgency (starting in Iraq) into Syria against Assad, only then did major outflows occur from those places.

The old realist foreign policy was, "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard." But that eventually gave way unto idealist notions of exporting democracy Neo-con style and wishful 'End of history' Fukuyama like beliefs that the whole globe was yearning for and ready for western societies if we just took out their dictators for them.

That also has backfired spectacularly with the added danger of lawless vacuums now fill up with terrorist organizations wherever there is no government. Maybe the dictator realist policy begins to look like the lesser of two evils again. Certainly how Putin sees it (and Trump may agree).

Other more conspiratorial takes might argue such chaos is our intention, via larger US/Israel 'divide and conquer' geopolitical strategy to keep down any possible emerging nation state that could be a threat on a larger scale (Saddam's Iraq w/ WMD). But if the blowback of that increasingly becomes unstabilizing refugee numbers and terrorism even on our soil, it needs to be rethought fast.

[Red Larrivee]

The sad thing is the overt Trump supporting racist, sexist, bigoted, xenophobes won. It's a Democracy. This is us.

The funny thing is watching closet Trump backing pussies support the win with carefully crafted language about how the result is about everything except what Trump ran on. Cowards.

Probably the same people who insist that racism isn't a significant problem in this country anymore.

What's even funnier are the people who are trying to spin this into optimism. "Maybe Trump won't do the things he talked about for months. Maybe it was all just a front. Maybe he really will unify America." He didn't have to unify America to win this election, so why would he suddenly start once he's in the White House?

[Mech Engineer]

A school of thought is getting rid of dictators(however messy it is) is better than getting immigrants who are fleeing these dictators as refugees(because they are punished). It is never smooth and takes time. But, eventually, it is a better long term solution. If not the US, who will do it? Most countries do not have the power/capacity/approval to do good things. That's why US has been looked upon as the most powerful nation.

Obviously, you cannot be involved in multiple places and doing crazy things. But, look at North Korea. Without involvement, it is getting more and more dangerous.

I really don't understand why we should "get rid of dictators"? Did anybody appoint us to be the world police? Do you really think that the US should force a liberal democracy on every country in the world? That's insane.

The US should NEVER interfere with any foreign country unless there is a clear and imminent threat to us (i.e. nuke proliferation or terrorist attack) or some massive genocide is happening where MILLIONS are being killed. Part od being a democracy is respect other types of government. If people want to live under a theocracy or any other non liberal regime, that's not for us to decide. We should have a LOT more respect to other nations' sovereignty. We should have never gotten involved in Libya, Syria or Iraq, and we should not be involved in Somalia right now.

The fact that you have power, does not mean it should be used.

Did you think through what you wrote? You have to meet/talk/live in such places before you proclaim such things. Nobody said start getting involved everywhere because there's a dictator. I am sorry, you might not like it. But, other countries(mean regular people) look up to the US to help them out because US has the capacity to do it. It doesn't always mean war. There are a lot of avenues but US has to take the lead and there is no shirking from that responsibility. US cannot become like Norway or Sweden.

[Mech Engineer]

A school of thought is getting rid of dictators(however messy it is) is better than getting immigrants who are fleeing these dictators as refugees.

I think the old realism was actually that dictators kept people in place, however brutally, in some kind of structured societies. Before wars in Iraq, Syria and Libya, their people weren't fleeing even though they lived in oppressive regimes.

It was only when Saddam fell and Iraq became effectively a civil war that Iraqi refugees went into the millions, the coming of ISIS, etc. And similar with Libya after Gaddafi was killed, and then the insurgency (starting in Iraq) into Syria against Assad, only then did major outflows occur from those places.

The old realist foreign policy was, "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard." But that eventually gave way unto idealist notions of exporting democracy Neo-con style and wishful 'End of history' Fukuyama like beliefs that the whole globe was yearning for and ready for western societies if we just took out their dictators for them.

That also has backfired spectacularly with the added danger of lawless vacuums now fill up with terrorist organizations wherever there is no government. Maybe the dictator realist policy begins to look like the lesser of two evils again. Certainly how Putin sees it (and Trump may agree).

Other more conspiratorial takes might argue such chaos is our intention, via larger US/Israel 'divide and conquer' geopolitical strategy to keep down any possible emerging nation state that could be a threat on a larger scale (Saddam's Iraq w/ WMD). But if the blowback of that increasingly becomes unstabilizing refugee numbers and terrorism even on our soil, it needs to be rethought fast.

I agree for most part. That's why strategy is important. Obviously, the middle-east is a mess and you have to be careful when you get involved. For that matter, Afghanistan has been a decent success(considering the mess it was in). Don't compare it to a developed country but just compare to where it was in 2001.

I agree direct involvement is always ripe for failure. The "He's our bastard" is a very dangerous game to begin with but also shows no empathy for the majority of the people in those countries when you have the power to affect change.

I do like Trump's idea actually to have safe zones in those areas but they do actually exist. There are millions of refugees in stable middle-east countries like Jordan. But, I think that's where something is not right on how it is being implemented, IMO where a Trump might be able to have a better impact.

[johnnyvann840]

Interestingly, Trump actually got 1% less of the white vote than Mitt Romney. So much for all these racists fired up to vote for him. Are there racists who supported Trump? Of course. But, I really don't think anymore so than any other election. Period. the numbers bear this out. I would say there were far more racists fired up to vote against Obama than to vote for Trump and it wasn't enough, so this logic just smells bad. This election was about much more than that.

Nobody is saying racism isn't a problem in this country (at least not me), just that it is not the reason Trump is the PEOTUS. It's the people trying to make that out to be the case who are just further dividing people. It's crying wolf and at the worst F'ing time. It's just the last thing the country needs right now. Call it like it is. Hillary lost because she didn't give enough people a reason to vote for her. She needed to come up with a vision not a bunch of rhetoric. The same rhetoric people are sick of hearing. The best her campaign could do is keep repeating that "Trump is a racist, narcissistic, sexist, mean idiot". "He sucks so you have to vote for me" is just not gonna cut it. Sorry Hillary. The Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves here. What an opportunity they had and they pissed it away.

[kyrv]

Somebody needs to tell Van Jones that more NON-white people voted for Trump than for McCain OR Romney. Many of the same non white people who voted for the first black President. True. Somebody needs to tell him to stop inciting racism and turning the election into a racial statement. It wasn't. That much is clear to anyone who looks at the numbers.

And I'm not sure how many non-whites love wall street, media conlomerates, or radicals.

[waffle]

Yup. They missed the mark. Trump had almost NO organization, but he did have an audience and he did have a message and he mostly stuck to it and it resonated. Did any of it, under examination, make any sense? No? Did it matter? No? Is that kinda sickening? Yes?

[TheSuzerain]

Whitewashing the white nationalism that was central to Trump's campaign and candidacy is flatly irresponsible.

I have no interest in holding hands and singing Kumbaya now that the votes are cast. This guy isn't my President.

[Mech Engineer]

Interestingly, Trump actually got 1% less of the white vote than Mitt Romney. So much for all these racists fired up to vote for him. Are there racists who supported Trump? Of course. But, I really don't think anymore so than any other election. Period. the numbers bear this out. I would say there were far more racists fired up to vote against Obama than to vote for Trump and it wasn't enough, so this logic just smells bad. This election was about much more than that.

Nobody is saying racism isn't a problem in this country (at least not me), just that it is not the reason Trump is the PEOTUS. It's the people trying to make that out to be the case who are just further dividing people. It's crying wolf and at the worst F'ing time. It's just the last thing the country needs right now. Call it like it is. Hillary lost because she didn't give enough people a reason to vote for her. She needed to come up with a vision not a bunch of rhetoric. The same rhetoric people are sick of hearing. The best her campaign could do is keep repeating that "Trump is a racist, narcissistic, sexist, mean idiot". "He sucks so you have to vote for me" is just not gonna cut it. Sorry Hillary. The Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves here. What an opportunity they had and they pissed it away.

Yeah... Whatever you think of Hillary as a person/candidate, her team messed up. They could have been positive and never saw a positive ad until the last day while Trump was saying he will make America great again every day.

Plus, they ran scared and fell into his trap. It's like a basketball game. Do you impose your will on GS or try to play the free 3pt shooting game when you face them. You will lose.

For all her details on policy, she could not simplify those policies into simple sentences we can remember. That's my take.

[Rerisen]

He didn't have to unify America to win this election, so why would he suddenly start once he's in the White House?

Unification is going to be harder so long as politics is based so much on identity groups. And pandering to groups only in those terms, instead of arguing over ideas which is the core of strong democracy. Trump's win may be in part the end spiral result of that style of dividing people up. But its far too simple to encapsulate this whole cycle.

As much as some want to navel gaze the feelgood moral stances (which offer losing with extreme righteousness, and perhaps vanity), I think the biggest narratives driving this election was actually globalist vs nationalist, outsider vs insider, change vs status quo. Hillary checked all the wrong boxes on those polls in the current zeitgiest.

How is that arguable? Because it's quite likely if not for shenanigans in the DNC, Bernie Sanders could be president right now, certainly the dems internal polling via wikileaks shows they thought Bernie was stacking up way better vs Trump than Hillary in the general. He certainly could have won, as an opposite poll version of Trump against these bigger themes, and if he had, the nominal racist, sexists element on Trumps behalf, would be buried in the larger wave against those things. I.e. The idea that millions of people voted on account of simply refusing a woman president, including millions of woman(!), is intellectually lazy - and again divisive identity stuff.

It seems many voters wanted a bigger advantage not vs their fellow Americans but rather against Non-Americans (via trade), and against big money politics. Hillary's vision (or lack of) was more 'global citizen' oriented, and in the current environment of broken healthcare, struggling middle class, wealth consolidating trade, the pushback was for leadership to start focusing at ground level America again. Whether that will be the reality remains to be seen, but that is how it was perceived.

[TimRobbins]

Did you think through what you wrote? You have to meet/talk/live in such places before you proclaim such things. Nobody said start getting involved everywhere because there's a dictator. I am sorry, you might not like it. But, other countries(mean regular people) look up to the US to help them out because US has the capacity to do it. It doesn't always mean war. There are a lot of avenues but US has to take the lead and there is no shirking from that responsibility. US cannot become like Norway or Sweden.

I thought it out very thoroughly and I truly believe that not every country should be a liberal democracy. We live in a global world. If somebody is not happy with the regime in his country, he can move to another country that better fits him. We have no responsibility whatsoever over the welfare of people not living in this country. It's exactly this chain of thought that has brought so many disasters upon people we supposedly tried to "help".

We can live anyway we want to.

[TimRobbins]

Other more conspiratorial takes might argue such chaos is our intention, via larger US/Israel 'divide and conquer' geopolitical strategy to keep down any possible emerging nation state that could be a threat on a larger scale (Saddam's Iraq w/ WMD). But if the blowback of that increasingly becomes unstabilizing refugee numbers and terrorism even on our soil, it needs to be rethought fast.

Israel? Where are you getting this? Some Nazi website?

All these interventions have nothing to do with Israel and have done nothing to help Israel. You seriously think that Obama's intention was chaos? US/Israel? Obama hates Israel. Also, have you looked at the map? what does destabilizing Libya have to do with Israel? Libya is in Africa.

When you start dragging Israel into the debate it's nothing more than an excuse. The US has NEVER used military force for the benefit of Israel. 100% of the responsibility here is ours. Saying the Israel is somehow pulling our strings is not only a ludicrously antisemitic proposition, it's also a huge cop out.

[Rerisen]

Other more conspiratorial takes might argue such chaos is our intention, via larger US/Israel 'divide and conquer' geopolitical strategy to keep down any possible emerging nation state that could be a threat on a larger scale (Saddam's Iraq w/ WMD). But if the blowback of that increasingly becomes unstabilizing refugee numbers and terrorism even on our soil, it needs to be rethought fast.

Israel? Where are you getting this? Some Nazi website?

All these interventions have nothing to do with Israel and have done nothing to help Israel. You seriously think that Obama's intention was chaos? US/Israel? Obama hates Israel. Also, have you looked at the map? what does destabilizing Libya have to do with Israel? Libya is in Africa.

When you start dragging Israel into the debate it's nothing more than an excuse. The US has NEVER used military force for the benefit of Israel. 100% of the responsibility here is ours. Saying the Israel is somehow pulling our strings is not only an ludicrously antisemitic proposition, it's also a huge cop out.

I said it was a conspiratorial take, don't lose your hat. And I didn't say anyone was 'pulling our strings'. Israel is our ally in the ME, we do form strategies with our allies, just like we would form strategy with the UK vis-a-via Russia, in the Europe theatre.

There are foreign policy think tank papers that do discuss the merits of such a strategy.

Obama never really wanted to go into Libya, it was Hillary and the Europeans that pushed it.

Whatever the endgame was thought to be here in Libya and Syria it is going horrifically and needs to change. Why we are still funneling support through Saudi and Qatar to terrorist fighters, is facepalming. What is it accomplishing? Such incompetence does make you wonder sometimes how what we are doing can be taken at face value.