Like in the olden days

Trust me, a lot of us Americans felt like throwing up too when we heard Trump spew this garbage. We still do.

@Ysabet
Trump and his ilk is not the America we like. For everyone's best interest, do vote wisely this autumn.

Of course the other irony here is that most Norwegians have very little reason to leave their wealthy, secular, liberal society, where no one is starving or desperately poor, to move to the US, where it's pretty much the opposite in all of those respects except for the wealth.

@Tualha And the other, other irony is that prior to World War 2, Scandinavians were mostly seen as undesirables in the US. They weren't considered "white," the same with Italians, Greeks, and Eastern Europeans.

@ShoggothOnTheRoof *Did those guys learned at time any history, Because They with italians Found The Americas. Columbus even actually brought some!

@Mixu Racism has never been based on logic. For a long time in America, being "white" meant your ancestors were British, French, or German. Italians and Eastern Europeans didn't get to join the "white" club until around the Civil Rights Movement, when racists suddenly realized that their political power was in jeopardy and started recruiting a wider circle in order to try and prevent black people from getting a political voice.

You really need to be ignorant to interpret what Trump said as a form of racism.

@NorwaySwedenDenmark i agree, trump didnt say either "white" or "master race", what he meant was people from cultures like ours. people from "shithole" countries usually have a culture/ideology that doesnt fit at all western values, bringing a lot of people from those places is just gonna create culture crashes.
Disliking someones ideology or culture isnt racism, only reason people are using the word racist is that many of these countries are countries with a majority of darker skinned people. I dont hear people call us racist when we call some east european countries for shitholes
I have had this conversation with a lot of norwegians that i know, noone was bothered with what trump said. noone had flashbacks to the ww2 nazi invasion lol

@Seithoris
Funny how people get so triggered from what we say. Nine people for me and four people for you get so triggered to hear a view that differs from their own that they vote down rather than argue. And the same people who vote us up doesn't act in equal poor taste as seen from how their comments aren't voted down.
All I even said was that his comment wasn't about racism and people get instantly triggered.
Completely agree with what you said BTW.

@Seithoris Are u kidding me? U know native america are not white right.. If they're shared same culture more looks like mexico than norway... And why trump want to build the great wall between mexico and usa? U know trump not that smart right? He though he out of middle east when he arrived in israel... So in his head all norwegian he know are white and afrikans he know are black... He probably think that suomi in norway are immigrant from asia...

@Zuperkrunch "U know native america are not white right" yes, what does that have to do with this?
"If they're shared same culture more looks like mexico than norway." i have problem understanding what you mean, do you mean if usa shared more culture with mexico then usa would look more like mexico than norway?
"And why trump want to build the great wall between mexico and usa?" to more easier control and decide who can go in and out of the country. to more easily stop smuggling and illegal immigration
"U know trump not that smart right? " might not be smart/is ignorant on a lot of things (like climate change), but he has talent when it comes to economics. i have often referred to him as a talking buffoon.
"He though he out of middle east when he arrived in israel..." havent heard that before, if so then thats quite a funny mistake lol.
"So in his head all norwegian he know are white and afrikans he know are black... He probably think that suomi in norway are immigrant from asia..." might be he does, should ask him for clarification on what he actually thinks than to speculate.

@Seithoris trump is just decendant from immigrant from european country, i really don't know why from the first until 45th no native american become the president in their own countries? How do u feel if the immigrant in your country become your prime minister and banned other immigrant from other places because their religion and skin colour? I think Usa used to be shithole country to europe when their send their white criminal and murder, usa can be great because of their bad and good imigrant from all over the world not from their native... Usa is the only nation built the al-qaeda to destroy russian in afghanistan, and when they became boomerang for them self they just blame muslim and made muslim banned...and yes i meant the native america culture more closed to mexico and haiti than norway, if u said he is not the rasist maybe he just love him self, his children and his money thats why he fired his white team campaign steve bannon and cheat from his white wives...this is the link when he was in israel last year... https://youtu.be/TyOMNHkxkTg

@Seithoris He may not have literally said those terms, but his intent was clear. As others have said, you can't take it in isolation. It has context.

And what's so wrong with letting different cultures or ideologies into your society? You may learn to be better from them, they may learn to be better from you, that's how we're supposed to work.

'@Seithoris'
Hey here's a secret: When Europeans were immigrating to America? Including Norwegians? Europe was pretty much across the board a shithole. Whether we're talking dire poverty, dictators and kings, wars, or some combo of all those things.
Ireland? Shithole.
Italy? Shithole.
Germany? Shithole.
Portugal? Shithole.
Greece? Shithole.
Scandinavia? Shithole.

So I dunno bud, what cultural values are you talking about. Because if it's the usual bull where the poverty, instability, and backwards political systems are indicating to you people that can't thrive in a democracy. Well Europe already proved this wrong when it was you vomiting people on the US. From your many shitholes.

@Seithoris Disliking a culture is more or less racist. Some cultures may not fit well in certain environment, true, but that is an objective statement. When you disliking them you are crossing the is-ought distinction. We should not judge cultures, because judging must start with a value system. If you judge a culture, you imply that your own culture is more correct than other's. That why it is racist.

Suppose we give Trump the benefit of doubt. Suppose he only meant to say, people from these country would not fit well with America's Western industrialized capitalist democratic society. Suppose he said that purely from a policy maker's perspective. That's still not true. People fleeing their country are often the most industrious and open-minded. Those are not shit coming out from shit holes, but gold nuggets from dirty rivers.

@JustinY Should not judge cultures? so cultures that practices honor killings, child marriages, forced marriages, cousin marriages, segregation, genital mutilation, cultures that lack freedoms of thought and speech, etc are perfectly fine for you? are you telling me these values are on par with our own in terms of value?
Im gonna go that far, im gonna set values on this and indeed imply that our cultures is indeed more correct than others.

Many that comes bring their cultures with them, those who are fleeing is indeed more likely to integrate because they were already opposed to their own country's culture, as opposed to economical immigrants, aka opportunity seekers, who simply move for the economical gain, often under the guise of fleeing which is easily debunkable because they ignored all the peaceful countries on the way to us who happen to have welfare. these people are much less likely to integrate. these people are also often low skill workers and either end up leeching on the state or take up the lower end jobs which drives down wages and makes it harder for citizens who are low skill as well to find jobs

@Seithoris You can have personal preferences for certain cultural practices, but you can't make a moral judgement on the entire culture. Some of the examples you listed I do dislike personally, but I'll never call them amoral unless I specify which ethics principle I base that statement on, and I always keep in mind that the principle ultimately has no ground other than "I feel like it." As a vegan, I strongly wish that cultures that consume large quantity of meat will change as quickly as possible, but I do not consider those who eat meat amoral nor the rural American culture a bad culture. The strongest statement I would make is that, generally, people who care about animal welfare and/or sustainability should adopt a plant-based diet, or else it would be hypocritical.

I'm fine with cousin marriage and some forms of child marriage, by the way. There is limited scientific evidence that cousin marriage increases the rate of genetic problem. In studies that do find an effect, the effect is on par with getting pregnant after 30 years old. As for child marriage, defining adulthood as 18 years old is arbitrary. There are many cultures in which people become independent much earlier, like 13 years old or so. Biologically, most people reach sexual maturity between 15-17.

@NorwaySwedenDenmark You have to be badly ignorant of Trump's behavior for the past few years, in particular his association with neo-Nazi groups and his habit of retweeting statements from them, in order to think that there was no racist connotations behind what he said.

@ShoggothOnTheRoof
He has denounced the Alt-Right several times and said he does not support any of the neo-Nazi groups. The "Good people on both sides" does not refer to Nazis, but to the people protesting the statues.

Trump retweets statements he hears in isolation. The one retweet I heard of was a meme where he beats up CNN and I don't see any harm in that. It's just funny or poor taste, depending on your view.
If he really was a white-supramacist or neo-Nazi why would he be fine with his family marrying so many Jews and be buddy buddy with the Israeli Prime Minister? Why would he be on such friendly terms with Ben Carson?

@NorwaySwedenDenmark Those people marching for the statue to stay up is marching for a statue of a man who fought for the right to keep black people as slaves. Those so called not racist people allowed them selves to be seen marching side by side with people declaring they are Nazis. Nope no racism at all (thick layer of irony).

Trump once said there should be re instituted death penalty when four black men was accused. He has repeatedly over the years said they deserved that even when the court cleared them due to DNA test. How you can defend a man who say and does these things is beyond my ability to understand. Not to mentioned all the women that has accused him of sexual assults. I would say it tells something about a persons character if he calls racist, nazis, and white surpremesist Good people. Has 19 women accusing him of sexual assaults and call for dead panelty for black men who is proven innocent. A man who has refused to release his tax returns and is under investegation for colluding with Russia while his son in law is under 3 different criminal investigations. This while the son in law and his own daughter is hired to do ... what?

But I am sure you have some stupid explanation on all that too. Probably something along the lines of that the women is lying, it is okay to make nepotism thrive, to profit on your presidency and being under criminal investegations all while defending the (not nazis). Besides it is all just a hox created by the media - fake news. I tell you what Donald Trump is one of the most disgusting people I have ever seen possess a public post. But unfortunatly as long as we have people like you to defend him we will always have idiots like him to run around.

@Horsi
This was what Trump said:
"You have some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group — excuse me, excuse me — I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."

He further went on
"Trump: Well, George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So, will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down- Excuse me. Are we going to take down, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?

Reporter: I do love Thomas Jefferson-

Trump: OK, good. Well, are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue? So, you know what? It's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture and you had people, and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists because they should be condemned, totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, OK? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You got a lot of bad people in the other group, too."
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/15/read-the-transcript-of-donald-trumps-jaw-dropping-press-conference.html

Concerning his Tax returns there is no obligation to release them and it is pretty recent for Presidents to do so. Also he has released his tax returns: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-tax-returns-white-house-president-2005-income-a7630436.html

As for the accusers, to my knowledge none of them has hold up in court and I haven't seen much evidence of sexual assault. Unlike you I don't take women at their word. I'm not saying they are lying, I'm saying innocent until proven guilty.

As for the call for Death Penalty I haven't heard of it so I can't make a comment on it.

Concerning Russia there's nothing concrete. If they had anything on him and ties to Russia that would mean he somehow cheated in the election they'd release it. Trump's administration has also been one of the hardest ones against Russia concerning Crimea and other issues.

@NorwaySwedenDenmark He's only denounced the Alt-Right when under pressure, and he's reversed himself afterword. He's friends with Ben Carson because Ben Carson is the token high-profile black guy that racist conservatives pal around with so they can say "I'm really not racist, look Ben Carson is my friend."

@NorwaySwedenDenmark If you look at that statement in isolation you might make a case. But looking at everything Trump has said and done in the past few decades you need to be really ignorant to not interpret Trump as a racist.

@Drazahir
What exactly has he said and done to make him look like a racist or Neo-Nazi?
How is calling Trump a Nazi any different from calling Obama a communist? It's the same conspiracy logic, yet one is ridiculed and the other is taken as a serious position

@NorwaySwedenDenmark Well for one the fact that Trump had to settle a lawsuit by the Department of Justice for discriminating against people of color renting his apartments.

How about the fact that he still argued for the execution of the Central Park 5 even after they had been found innocent and released.

Then there's the whole Muslim ban thing and how he wanted to keep a registry of all muslims and even wanted to put them in camps(though he retreated from that stance later)

Then there's the whole part about how he claimed that there were "good people" in the crowd at Charlottesville who shouted "blood & soil" and "Jews shall not replace us"

Then there's the time he essentially claimed that all mexican immigrants are drugdealers and rapists.

And also that one time he claimed that a Mexican judge presiding on a case against the Trump Corporation couldn't be unbiased simply because the judge was mexican.

And that's not even touching on the whole birther idiocy.

I'm not saying that we should call him a Neo-Nazi, because there's little evidence for that. But there's definitely enough evidence to call him a racist.

@NorwaySwedenDenmark A) He has a long uninterrupted history of racism from being sued by the god damn Nixon Administration for Housing Discrimination to literally saying a judge could not do his job because of his heritage. Also this Tweet https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6738847/Screen_Shot_2016-07-02_at_11.23.33_AM.0.png
B) During the Presidential Campaign he refused to disavow the support of the KKK and claimed he didn't know who David Duke was.
C) While President following the Charlottesville Riots he refused to condemn the white supremacists who murdered a woman and instead claimed their was blame on both sides and there were "some very fine people" in the crowd of Neo-Nazis shouting "Gass the K____s! Race war now!" And while he pretended that this was a condemnation of the Neo-Nazis the Neo-Nazis themselves certainly didn't feel as if they were being condemned. Richard Spencer even praised Trump for his comments which he took as a defense of their beliefs. And Trump didn't exactly rush to correct them.

@NorwaySwedenDenmark
racism
ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race


It was definitely, definitely racism. At BEST it was xenophobia (just as bad).

@NorwaySwedenDenmark It's not racism. It's just retarded. Which is why his voters see nothing wrong with the statement.

@Zuperkrunch
Americans, as in the original population descended from mainly from English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh settlers weren't immigrants. They were pioneers that created the states in America.

Usually when people tell immigrants to go back wherever they came from is because these immigrants are an burden economical burden on society, and usually illegally residing in the state. This was not the case with the white american settlers.

@Finn123 https://youtu.be/9gT-vJg-EfM at least justin trudeau not have same opinion as trump when handle the immigrant in canada wow.. They weren't immigrant but just a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country as pioneer from europe? So first european immigrant can called them self a pioneer (not immigrant) Coz native american in the old days didn't have any immigration law, that's not fair...

@Zuperkrunch To be fair describing European Settlers as Illegal Immigrants is wrong. They were not immigrants they were conquerors. Immigrants come to a natio;because they want to live there peacfully and have a better life. Conquerors come to a nation to forcibly take over it, lay its people to waste, and exterminate their culture. And only xenophobic conspiracy theorist believe immigrants of any legal status want to do that.

@Hyporia yeah.. Conquerors more make sense than pioneers...

@Finn123 Call it what ever you want but unless your ancestors came to the Americas before the 10th Century C.E. you’re an immigrant’s descendants.

@Hyporia
I'd say 18th but okay.

18th because there wasn't a country to actually immigrate to before that. Immigrant is someone that moves to a country. The ones that came before and built the country are called pioneers.

@Finn123 and nelson mandela was a hero not terrorist.. No european and world leaders would attend mandela's funeral for honoring him if he is terrorist or ex-terrorist.. https://youtu.be/QOVv4swj-mM

@Zuperkrunch
Uh, what? I'm sorry do you have a problem of some sort?

Hero or not he also participated in terrorism, and besides, western leaders Obama in particular have never seemed to have a problem siding with terrorists. And it's not like Mandela was a terrorist to the end, but he definitely was one in the beginning, that is a historic fact that no amount of mental gymnastics about world leaders can refute.

@Finn123 ... HERO!!! Not only obama attended his funeral,british's and danish's prime minister also there to honoring him.. Even UN leader.. They're seeing him as hero not ex-terrorist.. He was first native african who become a president in his own country... Before him were white european illegal immigrants who made that stupid apharteid system, so they can stole anythings from south africa for glorious european countries...
hitler was the real terrorist, no one attended his funeral and german still ashamed of him until now.. I don't want to tell u that u sounds racist but weren't your old bad comments about black peoples already deleted by humon...

@Zuperkrunch
You're quoting some welsh footballer? Uh... okay, I don't see why that'd be an argument for anything though. However it does just make it seem that you're inherently in denial of reality and will grasp at the first thing you see that in your mind somehow supports your non- reality-based opinion.

No matter how much you screech, Nelson Mandela was at a point the leader of a terrorist movement that did terrorist attacks that killed innocent people. That is why he was held in prison. The things people like about him happened after that. This is just factual history that happened, I'm sorry if you're unable to wrap your mind around it.

@Finn123 in reality nelson mandela was a hero.. He died as a hero.. All you can see from black peoples are just the negative one, he did that coz at that time the white european make the ridicolous apharteid system, have u read what hyporia said about the first european not immigrant but Conquerors #9751783 which is the worst than illegal immigrant not a coloners like u said, the black peoples had to be the slave in their own land, their precious diamond been stolen.. I imagine if you were born as black peoples in south africa at that aphartheid time, what would u do? u already complaining about black peoples in europe #9745729 and u describe that asian tourists will be disapointing when see black peoples in paris and mexican in texas.. Lol.. Declare u'reself the racist one, we're asian tourists never care about black peoples in paris or mexican in texas, u're the worst asian's tourists mind reader.... Dude it's 2018 not 1948, wake up.. Some of Black peoples already the richest one now days, don't u ever heard about jay z and beyonce? They're not just slave anymore, open your racist mind... and please never describe asian as the racist one! Bye..

@Zuperkrunch I love that first meme, like one of my favorite history jokes: Most of world history in 4 words: "knock, knock. It's Europe."

@SchrodySweden lol...

@Zuperkrunch That map is incorrect, we (along with you unless you are what your flag says) took over and/or influenced the hold world with our ideas and Culture such as demoracy.

@Mixu finn123 is a racist and he got banned lol #9745729

@Finn123 they banned u.. #9764206 u really like hitler lol.. full of hate speech and lies..

@Dorkymike
Fake Mike!!!
I know a lot of things wrong with u from the first time with your stupid banana joke, and always have an amnesia when did.a bad things.
U just a racist, and also a sexual predator who sent your genital pics to woman on the internet and i was right. You pretend to be a blond sugar daddy with your 2 first fake pics that i didn't trust, your real pics are so different from that 2 fake pics. The truth u're just a zonk with debt. So.. predictable.
Sorry... i'm not an idiot woman that u can trap easily, like the other woman before me. at least i'm a true traveler and never trap someone for free hotel and the cheapest way move to other country. Your target are Finnish woman or any young european woman who want to live in Finland or any wealthy european countries, and also a virgin, it wasn't a random thing, they are your target because u just lazy jerk who almost 40 and still living with your sister. U more obsessed with Finland than Silja, U obsessed with finnish lamp before u met Silja, u just using her weakness for your own obsession to move to finland, u just selfish jerk who always thingking about yourself. U're worst than finn123 and that scanian that u always say bad things about them behind their back..

I mean... Once a month is a true care, just twice in two years that seems like a holiday for free hotel. , u were right when you said Silla is the magnet for bad guys.... Including u.
And before u mocking someone nationality, please read again about your irish ancestor who was the cheapest slaves in US, I know u have a bad motive with that stupid banana joke. bye.. giant evil O'Grady

Maybe it's because if they live in a shithole country, it's a bad place to live, so they want to find a better job, and place to live? And that the Norwegians don't really have a reason to leave?

@potatoe4life *used logic!*
*it's super effective!

@ALargePotato *catches orange Donald Trump blob* now the world might finally be at peace :>




nope :'>

@potatoe4life Which doesn't mean that we have an obligation to let them and the problems that come with having grown up in a shithole into our country.

@TheChief lemme guess. the diseases and uneducated people, and i'm sure a few other problems as well, but that might also be why they want to move somewhere else. And yes, there is the fact that 'they're stealing our jobs' even though the jobs they'd most likely steal would be like, a McDonald's worker, so they can get money to get better education, to get better jobs, just like us. And yes there are the drug smugglers, and yes, there are the violent people, but hey. there are plenty of violent, and drug smuggling people who were born and lived in America too. I dont exactly understand why trump is so worried about the immigrants stealing jobs, when they are usually just hardworking, determined people, who may even have a family to feed as well like us. But hey, im in New Zealand so i dunno whats happening in the US. could you perhaps tell me a few other problems as well plz? srry if that sounded rude btw :s and that <:s

'@TheChief'
Such problems as being extremely driven to make a better life for themselves and not have their children grow up like they did.
Because y'know, that tends to be what drives people to immigrate to the US.
Also lol at anti-immigration screeds coming from someone with a sexual intercourseing Pope avatar. I guaran-sexual intercourseing-tee your Catholic immigrant ancestors were coming from shitholes when they came.

@sagas
"Such problems as being extremely driven to make a better life for themselves and not have their children grow up like they did. Because y'know, that tends to be what drives people to immigrate to the US."
But what is OUR obligation to let them here, if there presence endangers ourselves and our children?

Also lol at anti-immigration screeds coming from someone with a sexual intercourseing Pope avatar. I guaran-sexual intercourseing-tee your Catholic immigrant ancestors were coming from shitholes when they came.
1) I fail to see what sex has to do with my avatar you perverse little ape.
2) They certainly were. But I'm not.
3) I'm not anti-immigration. Seriously, you leftists are with immigration what the right-wingers are with guns. Why is it so fucking hard to imagine that there's middle ground between "let the foreigners come like a fucking wave" and "KILL THE BROWN PEOPLE". Fucking stupid.

'@TheChief'
"But what is OUR obligation to let them here, if there presence endangers ourselves and our children?"

It doesn't in particular.

"1) I fail to see what sex has to do with my avatar you perverse little ape."

You're likely Catholic, America, and are bitching about those durn immigrants.
If you don't understand the dark comedy here you're even more clueless than I thought.

"2) They certainly were. But I'm not."

It's like I can see where the Thought drove by you and waved for you to come over and think it, but you refused the call. Much easier to listen to the loud addictive noises in your brain than actually use the thing.

"3) I'm not anti-immigration. Seriously, you leftists are with immigration what the right-wingers are with guns. Why is it so sexual intercourseing hard to imagine that there's middle ground between "let the foreigners come like a sexual intercourseing wave" and "KILL THE BROWN PEOPLE". sexual intercourseing stupid. "

You're very obviously a right winger for immediately assuming "a sexual intercourseing wave" is the thing being discussed. Oh and for entertaining the radical right wing reforms to immigration that are the topic of discussion.

@sagas
"It doesn't in particular."
So you can assure me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the violence which has descended upon Europe due to the influx of radicalized Muslims and the Texas borderlands due to the cartels, will not expand over our country should we open ourselves further to immigration.

"You're likely Catholic, America, and are bitching about those durn immigrants."
I'm not thought, you condescending prick. I'm arguing that we have no obligation to aid people who violate our laws and further,
"If you don't understand the dark comedy here you're even more clueless than I thought."
Folk didn't want Catholic in America. I FUCKING GET IT. It's just not funny. Or relevant, for that matter.

"It's like I can see where the Thought drove by you and waved for you to come over and think it, but you refused the call. Much easier to listen to the loud addictive noises in your brain than actually use the thing."
You're a right ass, you know that? God forbid you should ever lower yourself so far as to EXPLAIN your fucking point rather than being a constant, smarmy bitch.

"You're very obviously a right winger for immediately assuming "a sexual intercourseing wave" is the thing being discussed."
So you do not, in fact, believe that we should allow illegal immigrants to stay in our country and relax restrictions on immigration?
"Oh and for entertaining the radical right wing reforms to immigration that are the topic of discussion."
I have not once advocated for anything that could reasonably be described as "Radical" you arrogant pain in the ass.

'@TheChief'
"So you can assure me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the violence which has descended upon Europe due to the influx of radicalized Muslims"

I am also very VERY scared that the poorly controlled mobs of refugees crossing the Mediterranean and Balkans will swim across the Atlantic ocean somehow.
Why do conservatives value macho toughness so much, when so much of their ideology boils down to being terrified grannies? It really boggles the mind.

"and the Texas borderlands due to the cartels, will not expand over our country should we open ourselves further to immigration."

Cartels don't immigrate, unless you think their product is an immigrant.

"I'm not thought, you condescending prick. I'm arguing that we have no obligation to aid people who violate our laws and further,"

Can you actually sit down, take a second, and pick what topic you're talking about? Because I think you're swiveling to talking about illegals now, which doesn't match or cover the Muslim thing. Or are you even aware of this?
Also if you're not Catholic are you just a really clueless Protestant who doesn't realize the Pope has nothing to do with his religion?

"You're a right ass, you know that? "

Oh wait, are you British? Why are you even talking about American immigration, shouldn't you be complaining about Poles and Pakistanis? Or do you just talk funny, or what.

"So you do not, in fact, believe that we should allow illegal immigrants to stay in our country and relax restrictions on immigration?"

DACA people are a separate category of illegal that should be handled as such. As for "restrictions", you are defending recent suggestions and other radical ideas from the Trump administration. The ball is in your court to explain the addition, not to act like I'm arguing for subtraction.

@sagas
"I am also very VERY scared that the poorly controlled mobs of refugees crossing the Mediterranean and Balkans will swim across the Atlantic ocean somehow."
So there are no refugees, WHATSOEVER who have been allowed entry to the United States from the war-torn areas of the Middle East?

"Can you actually sit down, take a second, and pick what topic you're talking about? Because I think you're swiveling to talking about illegals now, which doesn't match or cover the Muslim thing. Or are you even aware of this?"
We are discussing immigration IN GENERAL.
"Also if you're not Catholic are you just a really clueless Protestant who doesn't realize the Pope has nothing to do with his religion?"
Yes, I am a Catholic but I fail to see why this is a point of obsession for you.

"Oh wait, are you British? Why are you even talking about American immigration, shouldn't you be complaining about Poles and Pakistanis? Or do you just talk funny, or what."
I spent a fair bit of time in the British Isles as a child.

"DACA people are a separate category of illegal that should be handled as such.
AT THE ONSET, I aked for the Democrats' position on immigration to be laid out clearly, free from propaganda of either side. Was it SO FUCKING HARD for you to just say that? Really?
"As for "restrictions", you are defending recent suggestions and other radical ideas from the Trump administration. The ball is in your court to explain the addition, not to act like I'm arguing for subtraction. "
I defend his points because it has taken you a week to actually state your party's stance on immigration.

I am, personally, not against helping people.

but it should not be at the expense of our own country and it's people. And that is what is happening. We are taking in people who are unwilling to adapt to our society, which is a must for any immigrant since they willingly come here. That and it has a massive drain on our economy which should not happen, especially in times like these.

That and until we can make 100 % sure that those we let in are not terrorist-supporters, we should not take the risk.

@daniboyi And exactly how would you determine with 100% certainty that any given immigrant did not support terrorism? Mental telepathy? Sounds like a great way to deny everyone while pretending that's not your intent. Hey, I hear the White House is hiring, you should apply.

@Tualha nice baiting. Are you actually gonna put on an argument or keep acting like a kid?

first step: Deny entry to anyone who is unwilling to adapt to the culture of the land they travel to. They travel here and want to live in your country, so it is their first duty to adapt to that society and stop trying to bring their backwards culture to the modern world where it doesn't belong.

@daniboyi I think his main point is your "until we can make 100 % sure".

We're never going to be 100% sure because we cannot read minds. We can certainly screen people, but it's never going to be 100% flawless.

@Harbo then it is not worth it.

We are not required to help them, it is a kindness. If we are put at risk of getting exploded by helping them, then the risk outweighs the very few benefits immigration brings.

@daniboyi Yes, it's a kindness. And kindness should be given to those in need of it which we believe won't turn around and betray the trust we show.

If they turn around and abuse that trust despite our best predictions, then that's a matter for the justice system.

@Harbo I rather prevent anything from happening in the first place.

That and the danish government simply doesn't have that much money to throw around on people from other countries. I want to help, but the danish people > people from other countries.

@Tualha Would it be wrong to stop immigration all together?

@Jurgenfergen Considering that this would have completely unintended sideeffects, yes.

Say Sweden said "No, no more immigration, at all.", and say a Swede and Dane love each other - preposterous, I know - then the Dane would never be able to move to Sweden to live with his/her love.

So now a swede is without his/her love, and a dane is without his/her love, and sweden is down a baby-making family

Which is something sweden desperately needs more of. According to google, the swedish fertility rate is 1.88.

@Harbo That would be unfortunate, but I would argue that the security of the entire country would be more important than a few occasional love stories. All western countries have less than replacement rate of births. So why not encourage or subsidize the people to have more children rather than bring in other peoples' families? Tax breaks for parents or child subsides etc.

@Jurgenfergen I wouldn't´t think it would be a problem to slow it down. But usually there is a reason why people immigrate, and a lot of the reason lies in their home countries. Like war, religious persecution, little prospect of a good future, famine, political persecution, and a lot more. I think the effort instead of focusing on immigration we should focus more on why people immigrate in larger number from specific countries. And we will find something we can do about it. If we find the reason, which in most case we usually already have the answers to, we can start by solving it. If people are happy in their home countries most people wouldn't leave.

@Tualha While making snide sarcastic remarks behind the comfort of your computer screen certainly makes you a 'tough guy'. Here is a thought for you, every refugee from a 'shithole' country (save the elderly and children) stayed in their country to work together with other people to make their country not a 'shithole'; then perhaps their country would no longer be a 'shithole' and there would be no reason to leave. It figures that you would promote cowards into your country.

@daniboyi This isn't the first time I hear this argument, and I've been wondering about it: Do I understand correctly that you are against helping people in all cases that it is not free of cost?

I'm not defending people coming here and acting offended when we give them shit for being sexist/racist/unpleasantly backward, but surely even reasonable people will cost something to help?

@RegsaGC I am not saying don't help people, as I have said multiple time and I don't think it is wrong to spend money on helping others.

But for ages we have heard about how the danish economy is not doing amazing and how in the future there will be more trouble with the amount of money the state has and how much they can spend. And the fact they are cutting corners everywhere.

I just don't think that we should spend money on thousands of immigrants when the government are cutting corners in many places like elder-care and such areas. It is a simple matter of using money on Denmark and its people, before using money on those outside.

If the danish people truly wanted to help, they would give to charity instead of demanding government did it for them and then acting like they are good people for helping.

@daniboyi I think you are naïve to think that conventional charities can even begin to solve the Refugee Crisis of our time.
Wanting to help only the citizens of your own country is a valid enough stance, but it should be made very clear that the standard of living is in no way getting worse for us in the Kingdom of Denmark, and that any and all cuts to the state's budget is a result of political choice rather than some doom that would come from letting the taxes catch up to the increased demands.

@daniboyi it's so funny... When eropean invaded others countries in asia,america,australia,and africa.. They use their power to change others to be like them.. I don't think english was native america, and australian languages... And about the immigrants, u should protest to the UN..UNHCR handling that coz your country did signed the refugee treaty agreement after ww2..https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees so u have the obligation about them..

Unlike Hitler during Nazi Germany though, if Trump was assassinated, Americans would probably have a new unofficial national holiday.

Further, to dispel a common myth, the American people didn't vote for him. He lost the popular vote. Heck, he shouldn't have even gotten the electoral college to let him in because he broke campaign law and committed actions that made him illegal to be president. He's not democratically president, and he's not legally president. What got him in was old-fashioned corruption, money, and bribery.

P.S.
France, we need advice. I'll be honest, we don't know how to overthrow a corrupt ruler if what we're overthrowing isn't across an ocean. We heard you did something like that awhile back... I heard it involved not eating cake?

@joshupetersen

"I heard it involved not eating cake?"

Hahaha! Good one! :-D

@joshupetersen
"He lost the popular vote. "

Neither candidate got over 50% and won the popular vote, if your election was strictly democratic like here in Europe, there would've been a new vote with only two possible candidates without third parties.

And considering the spread of the votes, it is quite likely that Trump would've won that election since most, if not all, libertarians considered him a better option than Clinton. So you can stop your whining about popular vote, since he would've won in a democratic euro-style election as well


PS:
"if Trump was assassinated, Americans would probably have a new unofficial national holiday."
This is a sociopathic statement, or just an unsincere exaggeration because you're still on a tantrum about politics.

@Finn123
Just wanting to point out fact Trump has THE lowest public support ever. Of all time. Of any USA president. Also, fact is Hillary got more votes. Would that have been better option? doubtful.

@Meelis13
Hillary had the second lowest, and wasn't that far behind Trump.

The key factor in the election was economic policy, believe it or not.

Hillary got more votes, yes, but most likely wouldn't have in a democratic system where there would've been a second round so that the winner would get over 50%.
If Hillary got over 50% of the vote you might have a point.

In the end we will never know because in american federate democracy states are represented instead of just the pure mass of people.

'@Finn123'
The key factor was apathy, and a riled up far-right taken in by a conman demagogue.

@Finn123 , well, because of the conversation going on with @Nisse_Hult, I've logged in.
Since you're obviously better read up on the Federalist Papers, I've become much more interested in things like the Electoral College. I've not read the entire article yet, but, if you go for it as a whole, the person who came in second in the voting becomes Vice President.

Lol Hillary would have been vice president.

@Finn123

"Neither candidate got over 50% and won the popular vote"

You don't have to get over 50% to win the popular vote - just one single vote more then your opponent, regardless of any percentage, is enough to do that.

So yes, Trump lost the popular vote and Clinton won it. But of course that's not what decides US presidential elections.

Which in itself obviously makes a mockery of the entire democratic principle of "one person, one vote" - but that's "democracy American style".

But then the US in no longer rated as a "full democracy" but rather a “flawed democracy”, according to The Economist's ranking of the worlds countries:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/america-democracy-rated-donald-trump-not-fully-democratic-us-president-report-the-economist-a8195121.html

@Nisse_Hult
"You don't have to get over 50% to win the popular vote - just one single vote more then your opponent, regardless of any percentage, is enough to do that."

In a democratic election you have to get over 50%. Democracy is rule of majority, you know.
Also, there was more than two candidates in the election, if you didn't know. Which is why neither of the most popular candidates got over 50%. You really should do your homework before embarrasing yourself again.

@Finn123

"In a democratic election you have to get over 50%."

No, you don't.
Different countries use different systems and elections are held in many other instances as well, like inter-party elections or unions or non-governmental organizations of all kind.

And "popular vote" is just a term of American origin that describes votes being cast by ordinary voters - unlike the electoral collage where ordinary voters doesn't vote.
"Popular", stemming from the Latin "Populus", meaning "the people".

Winning the popular vote therefore only means getting the most votes directly from the people.

In some national elections that's enough to win - in others it isn't, since there can be a threshold that must be passed for the election to be considered legitimate - but that's up to each country to decide for themselves.

The election system most resembling the US in Europe is the British, which the US system was modeled after - and many other parts of the world that used to be British colonies also use this model.

It's commonly called the first-past-the-post method, and works by simple popular vote.
The individual candidate the greatest number of people voted for wins, totally regardless of percentages or number of candidates running or anything else.

You can see an illustration of the Singaporean Presidential election from 2011 if you scroll down a bit on Wiki's page on first-past-the-post voting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting

The text reads:

"Under a first-past-the-post voting method, the highest polling candidate is elected. In this real-life illustration from 2011, Tony Tan obtained a greater number of votes than the other candidates. Therefore, he was declared the winner, despite the second-placed candidate having an inferior margin of 0.35%, and that a majority of voters (64.8%) did not vote for him."

"You really should do your homework before embarrasing yourself again."

Yes - that's what I've been telling you for a couple of years now...
But you never learn - do you?

@Nisse_Hult
Someone winning an election with less than half of the vote is not democratic, plain and simple. That's why in every democracy majority is required, but it's unsurprising to me that you'd argue against simple facts with your usual endless textwalls of screeching. Nobody reads them anyway, and luckily I've already proven my point beyond doubt.

But so that outsiders reading this will surely understand my point, I'll demonstrate with a simple example why 50% is needed to win in a democracy and why in Europe in presidential election we have a second round with just two candidates if no one gets over 50%.
Let's have 4 candidates (usually there are more but this is a simplification).
Candidate A gets 35%, B 10%, C 30% and D 25%. Nobody gets over 50, so we go to a second round with A and C. A gets 45% and C gets 55%, therefore C wins this democratic election.

Of course, in the US election, Trump did get over 50% of the vote, which is required to win. Over 50% of the vote of the electors representing their states, that is, because the US is not a simple country like most others, it is a federation where states are represented.

@Finn123

Sorry, but this is getting kind of desperate, actually.

You're now claiming the UK isn't a democracy - since it's election system doesn't conform to your opinion of what constitutes a democracy.

I mean I've posted a link to Wikipedia showing that what you blurted out because you thought that was correct is simply wrong. There is no universal rule that says that a candidate has to win 50% of the votes in an election for it to be a legitimate democratic election - there simply isn't.

But instead of accepting that fact, you're now doubling down.

What you're describing is elections that has a run-off method of voting - which is ONE way of doing it - but not the ONLY one.

Something I've already told you - but of course you never listen.

'@Nisse'_Hult Democracy 'American style' recognizes that there's more to effective governance than simple majoritarianism. We're a big country (even back in the 1700s we were huge compared to the typical European country, and we've only gotten larger since), and it would be too easy for concentrated majorities in one area to rule in their own self-interest without regard to everyone else out there. So our founders implemented a system that rewarded breadth of support in addition to popular support, and it has served us very well.

And while we certainly have our flaws, you can't take the Economist too seriously...between Trump and Brexit they've had several sharp knocks to the head recently, and aren't really themselves at the moment. We're hopeful they will make a full recovery someday, though.

@Dorsai

The American system of representation was deeply flawed already from the very beginning as it awarded southern, slave owning states the representation of three-fifths of a citizen for each slave they owned - while the slaves themselves where of course not eligible to vote at all.

It was a deeply undemocratic compromise that gave disproportionate power to southern, rural states, and that imbalance has persisted ever since.

Since the end of the Civil War not by this means, but by others and not always effecting the same states in the same way as representation has shifted through the years.

But the point remains that citizens in the more densely populated states have in effect always been given slightly less then one vote, while voters in rural areas have usually been given more then one.

This is obviously not democratic in any way at all, but once the exemption was made for the southern states it was obviously hard to claw it back.

Voters in areas that gain from this system of course defend this imbalance in their favor fiercely - as does their elected representatives.

But that still doesn't change the fact that this obviously violates the basic democratic principle of "one person, one vote" - which the US still falsely claims to uphold.

Here's an old opinion piece from NYT about it, talking about McCain vs. Obama in 2008, so no one thinks people are only mentioning this because Trump won:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/opinion/02cowan.html

The US election system has been seriously messed up from a democratic standpoint for a very long time - and people who study it has been noticing.
But obviously not most ordinary American voters.

'@Nisse'_Hult Did you notice that the NYT piece you shared didn't even mention slavery or the three-fifths compromise? That's because it really has nothing to do with anything in the 21st century, and is only being dredged up today thanks to the hyper-polarized identity politics that we're currently suffering through.

As to 'one person one vote'...if you understand what people here are actually voting for, we're quite close to it. The US president is not a directly elected position - it is in fact elected by representatives of the states, not by the people. Early in our history, some states didn't even have popular elections for president, the state legislatures chose their representatives themselves. Over time (I think by 1832, but I am too lazy to look it up) all states have gone to systems whereby those representatives (the Electors you heard so much about, who together make up the Electoral College) are chosen by the people, but that's not actually a requirement...and as far as I know, any state that so decided could actually go back to the old method if they so choose.

What people vote for today are slates of electors....and that is very much one person, one vote. Sure, the ballot may have Trump and Clinton printed on it in big bold letters, but in reality who I voted for was not Donald Trump, but instead a group of people who pledged that they would vote for Donald Trump on behalf of the state of Georgia. And in doing so, my vote counted exactly the same as that of everyone else in Georgia.

It's complicated, and archaic...but it is suited to our particular circumstances and has worked quite well for 200+ years. And given how much of Europe hasn't gotten around to beheading their kings and queens yet, I'm not sure you're in a position to criticize.

@Dorsai

It very much has something to do with today, because as I said - that's where the original problem started.

Once the principle that rural, low population areas, where given preferential treatment was initiated, it's been a constant undemocratic problem in the US system.

It's presented like a feature by people in those areas - but it is in fact a bug in the democratic system.

And a system that doesn't reflect the actual will of the people will eventually cause enough discontent for people to demand a change.

But given that these rural areas are now mostly controlled by the bat-shit crazy GOP, any such demands for change from a majority of the US population will probably be viewed by them as grounds for a second Civil War.

But hey maybe then - when the the south has lost a second time - they will learn to accept change?
It took Germany two world wars to stop loving their guns - maybe that's what the American south needs as well?

I certainly hope not of course - but the way the American right responds to facts by preaching fantasy... Let's just say things doesn't look good from over here. :-/

Regarding our royals we found a much better solution then chopping their heads of.

We stripped them of all their power and keep them in a gilded cage.

Then we let American and German tourists come here and spend lots of money looking at them waving from a balcony from time to time. ;-)

'@Nisse'_Hult No, that's not where the problem started - you're conflating the three-fifths compromise with the electoral college. The 3/5ths thing was to get the southern states on board with the Constitution, and the electoral college system was to get the lower population states on board. Some of those states were one and the same, and some were not - Virginia was a slave state, but was also the most populous state. Rhode Island was a (almost) slave-free state, but also had a tiny population.

It took a lot of compromises, not all of which were pretty, to form the country. Building a modern nation-state from scratch is a difficult process, particularly when it had for all intents and purposes never been done before anywhere. Look at all the backroom deals and kickbacks it has taken to form the EU...which isn't even a country and is already falling apart. What we did here was a miracle.

And as for demands for change...are you aware that the rural areas of this country used to be almost entirely Democratic? The Democratic party chose to abandon the people of those areas, and are now paying the price. Any time they'd like to regain power there, all they have to do is stop being lunatics. It's funny...now that I think about it, it is almost as though it is a self-correcting system; as the Democrats have gotten crazier and more urban, their breadth of support has shrunk and their ability to gain the presidency has been cut back. Gee but those 18th century guys sure were smart!

If we do end up with another civil war here (which I view as increasingly likely, BTW), it's not going to be North vs South...it's going to be us normal people against the urban enclaves. I don't know what will kick it off...maybe the nutters try to do a gun grab, as they keep fantasizing about, but at the end of it the cities will be burned to the ground and we'll have to spend the next generation rebuilding. It's sure nothing to look forward to.

@Dorsai

"No, that's not where the problem started - you're conflating the three-fifths compromise with the electoral college. The 3/5ths thing was to get the southern states on board with the Constitution, and the electoral college system was to get the lower population states on board."

You're partly right.
I was conflating different things - that's true.
But that fact that there are several different anomalies to basic democratic principles that can be conflated already at the founding of the Republic certainly does say that yes - that's where the problem started. Already at the beginning.

Which no one would hold against you if you had ironed those flaws out over time.
It's obvious the first legal framework you put in place for a nation won't be perfect - and certainly even less so over time, of course.

But oh no - you Americans had to deify your founding fathers and pretend like they where infallible and the document they drew up to rule thirteen dirt poor colonies, clinging to the eastern seaboard of a giant continent 300 years ago, will forever be perfect.

Which any other nation in the world understands is obviously nonsense!

I can't think of a nation in Europe - most of which are centuries older then the US - that has as antiquated a legal framework as the US.

Sure - we all have basic principles of laws that's been with us "forever" - but we rewrite the actual document from time to time to better suit our nations need in the times we live in.
Cut away some old stuff that's no longer relevant in a modern state and put in some new bit to cover things no one had thought about before.

While you Americans just keep reinterpreting the same document 300 years ago, word for word.

"Hm, ha - what did the founding father actually think we should do about revenge porn on the internet? Let's read the constitution and figure it out!"

It's just stupid of course. Just sit down and rewrite your constitution like any normal nation and put the old one in a museum.
The founding fathers certainly would have, if they came back and saw how completely outdated their old version was.

They where modern for their times, reading the newest philosophical ideas from Europe - experimenting with the coolest new thing called democracy.

Flaming liberals and progressives all of them - completely unlike anything American right-wingers today have tried to make them into.


I'm well aware of the US political parties shifting places on the issue of race, yes. Because that's what we're talking about here.

The democratic party certainly didn't abandon their southern voters (which are the ones we're actually talking about here, because the Republicans already had the rural voters in the north to begin with).

The democratic party was abandoned en masse by their southern voters, when they decided to support the civil rights movement.

Because it turned out being racist was more important to the southern white voter then anything else.

Which is why George Wallace happened and then along came the Republicans with their southern strategy and scoped up the racists vote.

What you're describing as a self-correcting system is your belief that the rural areas of the US having disproportionately large power is in any way a good thing.
Well of course you think that because you live there and you vote for the GOP.

But the thing is that's exactly what fucked the south the last time.

The slave owning southern states had been used to having an disproportionately large political influence, and they overplayed their hand because of it.

Not just content with keeping slavery in their original states, they pressed on to expand it into newly formed states and viewed any setback there as an assault on their fucked-up "way of life".

Then when Lincoln was elected president they went ape-shit in the sheer anticipation that he would outlaw slavery not only in the new states, but try to free the slaves in their old states as well.

Lincoln had no such intentions at all - understanding very well it was impossible to force such a decision on the southern states.

But like the modern NRA, huffed up on their own fantasy version instead of reality, the southern states one by one seceded - all based on their perceived sense of danger and insult over something Lincoln never did.

And still he tried to hold the Union together.

Then the trigger-happy Confederacy actively started shelling Ft Sumter and the shit really hit the fan.

All because the south believed that not being able to expand slavery to every state they wanted was in infringement on their rights.

And just like you now, they completely overestimated their own military strength.

Because please understand this, for your own wellbeing and the wellbeing of anyone you hold dear - if ever such a conflict arises again, the south - even if it's joined by the rest of rural America - will be utterly crushed again.

There is absolutely no question about that. OK?

Because wars aren't won by attitude and pithy rebel yells - they're won by manpower, industrial capacity and economic strenght and the south and rural US has less of all of that.

'@Nisse'_Hult You seem pretty well-informed on the U.S. for a European, so I am not sure why you don't know that our constitution has been amended a number of times over the years. The core document is still there, of course, because it's a timeless, brilliant piece of work, but we make changes to it as needed to deal with problems. After the Civil War, in fact, there was a batch of three amendments that were added, including one that tossed out that 3/5th nonsense. But...even then, we realized that the basic structure of the electoral college was good, which is why we kept it. It would have been easy to get rid of at that time if we needed to.

The only reason you hear about it today is that the Democrats have painted themselves into a corner...they decided to go all-in on identity politics, and as a result their support has collapsed into the city cores and coastal enclaves. The rest of us are watching California collapse and the cities kill themselves, and marveling at the fact that they can't or won't change course. The only thing saving the country as a whole from that fate is the electoral college, and we aren't about to give that up. And since it takes a supermajority of states to amend the constitution (Thanks, founding fathers! You're damn right we deify them), it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

And as for a Civil War II here...google up a county-level Red vs. Blue map from our last election, and take a close look at it. Those are going to be the sides in the next conflict. Now consider where on the map that the food is grown, the power is generated, the raw materials are mined, et cetera. It won't be a set-piece military conflict like the last one, anyway...even those red areas are about 40% blue, and the same amount of red on the other side, so it's going to be more of a national knife fight in a phone booth than anything. But there's absolutely no question how it will turn out...and it won't be to your liking.

@Dorsai

Of course I know the constitution has been amended - but that's like adding support beams to a crumbling building.

Any other nation would re-do the building from foundation up, re-using the good parts and adding new material as necessary.

While you keep trying to shore up the skyscraper the US is today, based on a foundation meant to support the small wooden hut the US was 300 years ago.

It won't hold in the long run - it simply won't.

The only one who's painted themselves into a corner is the Republicans.

They've tied themselves to a shrinking white base of rural supporters while they piss on anyone non-white and non-rural.

Their base is a demographic minority now and it will only grow worse over time.

Not only is the rest of the country out-producing you in new voters - both by births and by immigration. You're also steadily loosing in your own core as young rural whites move to the cities as they get fed up with the backwards mentality of the towns they where born in.

You're bleeding support - and your leaders know it.

Which is why they are forced to take ever more drastic action in trying to suppress the vote, to cling on to their position.

But most of the country you control is already gerrymandered to the point where you can't squeeze out more votes - and you're still loosing ground.
And that's before the courts start striking your partisan redistricting down, like they did in Pennsylvania recently.

Voter-suppression laws are the next step, and to support them the Republicans are pushing lies about widespread voter fraud and racist fearmongering about illegal aliens voting.

Now none of this is true of course - but the Republicans now only care about keeping their own base of supporters fired up to keep the ship afloat as long as they can.

It's a losing long-term strategy, as they're not convincing a single new person by pumping out lies - but if they can increase the fear in their own base of losing power, they can motivate them to turn out at a higher rate.

The problem with that is that they have to keep ramping up the lies to produce new threats to scare their voters into voting.

They're well past any reasonable argument they could make, and into fantasy land completely already.
Millions of illegal's voting (never happened), the liberals are coming for your guns (no one ever proposed that), Obamacare will kill grandma (quite the opposite), the "deep state" is out to get Trump (yeah - the FBI is treasonous - not the guy with all the Russia contacts) and on and on.

Add to those lies, the level of fear and the unhinged conspiracy mentality the right-wing media fosters to promote new lies, the insane amount of guns in private hands in the US - especially in the hands of the rural GOP-voter - and you have a recipe for disaster.

So, now let me tell you what is the most likely thing to happen here:

Sooner or later the GOP will begin to lose power. They hold all the branches of elected power right now, so there is only down to go from here.

Having ratcheted up the fearmongering in their own base for so long, this will seem like impending doom to a lot of GOP voters.
Now the government will come for your guns, the black helicopters will land to take you away to the re-education centers where you'll be forced into same-sex marriages and socialized medicine death-panels will kill grandma.

Some elected Republicans will realize that their seats are no longer safe, and they'll feel forced to vote with the Democrats on some issue.
Right wing media will go ape-shit - we have traitors in our midst! Someone accepted a compromise with a Democrat! We must strive for ideological purity!

The GOP primaries will be filled with ever increasing amounts of loony-tune candidates that won't stand a chance in the general election and the GOP will lose even more seats.

Even more elected GOP representatives will feel the need to cross the aisle and eventually some will simply switch parties as they realize it will become impossible to win elected office as a Republican in increasing parts of the country.

The Democrats on the other side will sooner or later experience the exact opposite effect. They will win seats, and their base will become more enthusiastic for every win they score. People who haven't even bother voting before will - and they will vote Democratic, because the GOP has already maxed out their voter base with incessant fearmongering.

Now either the GOP at some point wakes up to these changes, or they'll continue losing like this.

They already had a study made after one of their lost presidential races against Obama that said the party has to broaden it's base and stop shitting on latinos and women.
In response to that the GOP primary voters elected Trump, who does that more then any previous Republican president in recent memory.

And Trump is still incredibly popular in the GOP base - despite, or rather precisely because, he's shitting on everyone except this white, rural base.

So despite the GOP leadership actually knowing this is a losing strategy for the party, it continues down this path - because that's what their base want.
Which tells me it's unlikely the party will ever wake up and correct course.

So the GOP won't change course, because GOP members that does will be forced out by a rabid base, whipped to a fearful frenzy by right-wing media pumping them full of lies.

The GOP will only continue losing power this way and eventually something will crack.

Either individual GOP voters, or a particularly nutty GOP elected official will start threatening the peace of the nation.
They won't see it like that of course - they will only see it as they defending themselves against the black helicopters by "2nd amendment remedies", succession or some other harebrained scheme - but it will be just as irrational as when the southern states went ape-shit over Lincoln's election.

There won't actually be any federal "gun grab" like you fantasies about, no more then there was ever any actual intent by Lincoln to free all slaves.
But the right-wing extremists in the loony-tune GOP base will tell themselves that something like that is coming, and decide that they must act first - while claiming self-defense.

Now society is much more diverse these days, so the GOP base of conspiracy-fed voters that will actually believe this doesn't actually control whole states.
They may win elections, but it's not like there is a majority support in even the reddest of the red states for succeeding over guns or some other stupid issue.

You saw that when the GOP tried to run a credibly accused child molester in deep read Alabama and lost - primarily because African Americans finally got fed up with that stupid cracker shit and went to the polls.

So if your "knife fight in a phone booth" breaks out, the loony-tunes right-wingers who want to take on the federal government won't even be in majority in the states they actually won - far from it.

Also, the right-winger love to believe that somehow the armed forces would be on their side, or split along partisan lines. They won't.
Have you looked at the numbers of racial and ethnic minority groups in the armed forces lately? They made up 40% of Defense Department active-duty military in 2015.

Also, the officer corps is much more highly educated then the general public. Eight-in-ten DOD active-duty officers have at least a bachelor's degree, including 42% who hold an advanced degree. They are four times as likely as average adults ages 18 to 44 to have completed a postgraduate degree.

Now many of them probably have voted Republican in the past, because they want to see defense spending increases. But do you honestly think they're believe the right-wing media fearmongering?
And do you think they believe an armed militia can take on the US military and win?

But more then that, they're of course loyal to the rule of law, and to think that a significant minority of them would betray their oaths to run of and join some rag-tag band of militia wanting to take on the federal government over some conspiracy idea they pulled out their ass today is ridiculous.

Some individuals probably will, as some individuals will do everything. But it's not like a significant part of the armed forces would.

So if anything like that ever was to happen, it would be nutcase militias armed to the teeth with semi-automatic weaponry - against drones and tanks.

It would be over in a far shorter time then the Civil War and I'd think historians would later question if it should even be labeled a civil war, when such a small part of the nation was ever effected and the casualties where as small as they where.

But, the loony-tune base having crossed the Rubicon like that would open the doors to radical change that never was possible before.

Like Lincoln couldn't free the slaves until the Confederacy actually started a Civil War over them, no Democratic president or Congress today could grab the guns - until a large enough group of gun-nuts misused their guns in such an obvious way popular support was radicalized into actually supporting outright repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

Which is way I say the south may yet get to fuck itself by overplaying it's hand and overreacting to democratic change with undemocratic and violent action, again.
And if they do - they will lose, again.

'@Nisse'_Hult I am actually at a loss how to respond to all of what you wrote. It's beautifully written, it's internally cohesive, and it is completely disconnected from reality. A lot of our self-annointed elites think much the same way here, and a year after their beautiful theories cracked apart on the rocks of reality, many of them are inches away from being committed to a mental institution. I wish you better fortune. :)

@Dorsai

You're kind to say those first parts at least, so I'll thank you for those. :-)

But if you're referring to Trumps election by talking about "self-anointed elites" that "a year after their beautiful theories cracked apart on the rocks of reality", you do realize Trump's victory was by the slimmest of margins?

I mean Trump himself obviously doesn't want to admit that.
So he not only boasts about the electoral collage number - he also lies about voter fraud and how he actually, really won the popular vote as well.

But you do realize that's all a lie? Right?

The majority of the voters that turned out never supported Trump, and even less so of course did the entire eligible voting public.

In fact, turnout was only 55,7% (which is dismally low compared to any other western democracy) of which 46,1% supported Trump, while 48,2% supported Clinton.

So he had the support of about a quarter of all eligible voters (only about half of which voted and only about half of which supported him).

And he won by that - thanks to the electoral college.

But he only won that by winning several states with ridiculously slim margins, like:

Michigan 0.23%
Wisconsin 0.77%
Pennsylvania 0.72%

Now this was against Hillary Clinton, who the Republicans have spent decades smearing - but she'll never run again.

And since in office, Trump's approval rating has of course only dropped further, with him being the most unpopular president in history at any point in his presidency so far.

The Republicans have also lost several special elections and even where they haven't lost their seat, the Democrats have decreased their margin of loss in almost all such elections.

There is definitely a blue wave coming this November, and record numbers of Republicans are choosing to not even run for re-election as they see it coming towards them.

Now, this doesn't mean that the scenario I described in my last post will all play out this November or directly after. Many things could happen that influences how fast the Republican down-turn will come and how it will develop.

But it certainly is coming - based on demographics alone.

You do understand that, right?

And the election of Trump may well go down in history as a catalyst for that change, as we now see increasing turn-out in special election and increasing grass roots activism on the Democratic side.

Remember the US:s dismal turn-out rates?

Well all Republican voters are already voting. When you're told the government will enslave you if you don't vote, you vote. The voters that haven't been showing up yet are Democrats - but they're starting to show up now.

So when they - in November and in later elections - start to flip seats and the rabid GOP base see their grip on power slip - how will they react?

They've been scared to the polls by tales of doom if they don't go. So when they go but still lose - how will they take that?

Especially since they've been told they're "really" the majority and have been lead to believe that the only way they can lose is by voter fraud?

Something Trump - being who he is - will probably claim openly, without any proof what so ever.

How will the armed-to-the-teeth, scared-out-of-their-wits, pumped-full-of-lies, rabid GOP base react to seeing their candidates lose - when that day comes?

'@Nisse'_Hult I was trying to let you have the last word...why are we still talking?

But since you insist...sure, Trump's win was pretty slim (in the unimportant popular vote...in the Electoral College where it matters, he was solid). But it was earth-shattering all the same, particularly to folks who think like you. It wasn't supposed to happen...in fact, Hillary and her team of geniuses were so certain it couldn't happen that she spent the last days of the campaign visiting places like Arizona (typically a red state) in an attempt to run up her electoral college vote. Meanwhile, she had never even visited Wisconsin (typically blue) once. Guess which state flipped sides?

In the end, Trump flipped three blue states...Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. The last guy who made such inroads into Democratic strongholds was Ronald Reagan (look up 'Reagan Democrats' sometime), and he redefined politics here for a generation.

Now, it's too soon to say whether Trump has done the same. But, he got through to the voters in those states like no Republican before him, and he's been working hard to make good on his promises to them. Will it work? Again, too soon to tell. But if he peels off another 10% or 20% of the white vote from the Democrats, that pushes back the much-anticipated demographic death of the Republican party by another couple of generations.

And in that time, who knows what might change? The thing is, minorities and immigrants aren't stupid, and their voting patterns aren't encoded in their genes. They like good jobs, a strong economy, and a strong defense as much as anyone else. The Republicans have been working on their outreach game, and if they ever make the connection with these groups, who will the Democrats have left besides college professors, journalists, and Hollywood rapists? You can't win elections with just that rabble.

As for this November...maybe there's a blue wave coming, but I wouldn't bet on it. The president's party almost always loses seats in an off-year election, and this year probably won't be different. They'll do their best, but the longer the economy keeps growing and more people go back to work, the harder it will be to maintain the fiction that Trump is some kind of special monster that has to be thwarted. Our best and brightest will of course keep pushing that line, but fewer and fewer people are listening anymore.

@Dorsai That "more effective form of governance" created by the founders was abandoned with the reapportionment act of 1929 which put a cap on the members of the house and a minimum members of house for each state, making it effectively Senate Jr. Instead of fully representative representation.

It should be worth noting, that if this system was followed before the Reapportionment act of 1929 hit, chances are that Bernie Sanders would be the US president right now, as he won areas over Hillary that would have given him more advantage, and in turn, the democrats would have one a non-reapportioned electorate even at Hillary's dismal numbers.

Further, the Reapportionment act of 1929 is decidedly unconstitutional as it violates Article IV of the constitution.

@Finn123 our electoral system is just one big mess

@Finn123
Oh, I voted third party, I knew my person wasn't going to win. I do think that without either of the main candidates getting the popular vote, we should have re-held the election. (In fact, that's the only route that would have satisfied Article IV of our constitution, but our politics have gotten notorious for ignoring our laws as of late.)

As for it being a sociopathic statement, what do you suggest as an alternative to when your politicians are above the law?

@joshupetersen
Lemme guess, Stein.

Well actually since the popular vote is irrelevant to the american system anyway, that'd've been redundant.

Are you sure it's because you deem him "above the law" (not saying he isn't, but which US president or a high status politician hasn't been above the law anyway?) or is it just because you dislike him like most of the people here?

'@Finn123'
"And considering the spread of the votes, it is quite likely that Trump would've won that election since most, if not all, libertarians considered him a better option than Clinton. So you can stop your whining about popular vote, since he would've won in a democratic euro-style election as well :D"

You conveniently are forgetting the Green party vote, and a million other factors that change between first votes and runoffs. That's just plain horrible statistics.

Namely the vote was heavily effected by apathy and lots of people not thinking Trump could win. This has born out in the immense voter turnout by Dems seen since Trump won.
Factor a second chance vote into the 2016 election and that would not look good to Trump at all.

You also really don't understand the sort of people who vote third party in the US. These are not people who care about their vote making a difference, they know full well that their candidates don't have a chance in hell. They wouldn't just vote for the Dems or Republicans because the other options went away, most would likely just not vote at all. Their votes in the first place are borderline protest identity votes, voting for the GOP or Dems would defeat their whole approach.

@joshupetersen Just take some (Very much) people with you, with weapons is good, go his... place where he lives? And well try overthrown him. But if you dont live next to him come with vehicles. And try not take much attention, actually maybe you could IDK. Try get much as people as you can then, People are the way. March to his place then. There if something go wrong. Atleast you are on the News, 50/50 chance if your heroes or bunch of savages, media decides. Theres actually kinda good plan I say.

@joshupetersen

Oh don't expect too much on us from France, we're a ruined country soon bankrupted and we're dealing with a massive problem of religion and cultures since the 2000's and never seen since the times we killed guys for not being catholics, I often see France as the exact opposite problem that you have in USA. ^^

But in good old times we beheaded our leaders... it's just an History course of course...

@MagicRooster Start with a beheading, keep the party rolling with a robbespierre? Though I heard the french government got after the makers of Assassins Creed for being "Counter-revolultionary ideas" or something. But didn't really look into it so who knows if this was just maybe one random guy who denied the so called reign of terror.

@Soulbourne Haha actually you're not completely wrong. Robespierre is a very special character, he was one of the first member leaders of the "Terreur" a very violent period of the French Revolution where republican fought against royalists, and, to be short, he tried to limit the impact of the war and have been killed for it, his opposition to several battles engaged by revolutionaries have been seen as counter-revolutionary by his oponent in his own party.

But beheading is a constant in France and everybody used it, royalists and revolutionaries included.

@joshupetersen Right, and Obama was born in Africa...BS all around!

@Newnetherlander
I do not understand your response. Please explain?

@joshupetersen BS stories are BS stories, no matter which side spins them.

@joshupetersen maybe the new one will be not eating cheeseburgers from Mc Donald...

There should be a Trump tag

@ryttyr There really should.

Yes, because residents of the happiest country in the world are going to immigrate to the United freaking States. Excellent logic, very sound.

But he is right, USA needs some more black metal.