Hyperloop Co-Founder 'Very Serious' About California Secession

[Deleted member 136890]

And the sad part is with all these riots and the bad things that comes with them is this

50 percent of those arrested are not even registered to vote and/or did not vote. Also what is damn funny is that these thugs and cry babies are not even from the city that they are burning to the ground.

As far as the Electoral College goes, leave it as is. It has worked as intended and yes it's to stop a big arse state like California from bulldozing over a tiny state. Nothing is going to change the outcome of this election unless the gov wants a revolution and civil war on it's hands.

To the poster who said that Trump only got 19 percent of the vote. Hate to break it to you but if that was true Trump would have been pounded into the ground in a cave in. Just over 100 million voted in this election so Hillary would have creamed him big time if he only got 19 percent of the vote.

 

[evilsofa]

And the sad part is with all these riots and the bad things that comes with them is this

50 percent of those arrested are not even registered to vote and/or did not vote. Also what is damn funny is that these thugs and cry babies are not even from the city that they are burning to the ground.

Yes, those are the anarchists. They have no political affiliation, they just like to riot and may show up for any large protest walk and don't care what it's about. They didn't show up in Seattle this time around because after quite a few rounds, the SPD has done a great job of figuring out how to defuse them.

As far as the Electoral College goes, leave it as is. It has worked as intended and yes it's to stop a big arse state like California from bulldozing over a tiny state. Nothing is going to change the outcome of this election unless the gov wants a revolution and civil war on it's hands.

To the poster who said that Trump only got 19 percent of the vote. Hate to break it to you but if that was true Trump would have been pounded into the ground in a cave in. Just over 100 million voted in this election so Hillary would have creamed him big time if he only got 19 percent of the vote.

As has already been pointed out, that's 19% of the population, not 19% of the voting population.

 

[Gorankar]

People that can vote, but don't vote, don't matter. If they want a voice, all they have to do is vote.

Or to put it bluntly. Those that do vote are representing t5he non voters whether they like it or not, or agree with the vote cast or not. Don't like that, then vote.

 

[Draax]

Now I'm not from the US ... so I guess I don't "get it". But the hate towards people in your own country, hell your neighbors even, just because they don't share your political views is scary. The only positive I can take away from this whole situation, is that I am glad it isn't like that where I live.

 

[aaronspink]

Fine, almost half of the voting population of the country, voted for him. The rest who were voting age just didn't give enough of a fuck either way. That slow enough for you?

Not even almost half of the voting population. Almost half of the voting population voted that both candidates weren't worth bothering with.

Your facts as reported by whom? The same media who had the election in the bag for Hillary and now struggle to come up with wild explanations for how Trump managed a political miracle ? Are those the people reporting your facts?

Facts as reported by the actual people who voted for trump. Including you.

So you are going to sit there and say it's not arrogant to say that Trump voters didn't know who and what they were voting for and what? In the same breath say that the Hillary camp is totally informed?

Oh god no, the voting public is horribly informed and primarily misinformed. That at least 50% of those who vote are low information voters isn't really even debated. But anyone who voted for trump in the hope that he would somehow implement congressional term limits, well....

Now you can say my kid was misinformed and you can say she is ignorant, but you can't say she didn't know what she was voting for or who she cast her ballot in favor of cause that would be a lie.

No it wouldn't. Your daughter like you cast a horrendously misinformed vote which is part and parcel of not knowing what or who you are voting for.

 

[Stiletto]

People that can vote, but don't vote, don't matter. If they want a voice, all they have to do is vote.

Or to put it bluntly. Those that do vote are representing t5he non voters whether they like it or not, or agree with the vote cast or not. Don't like that, then vote.

Bingo. Either take your turn and play, or quit whining when it doesn't go the way you like.

And if it doesn't go the way you like anyway, deal with it. It'll happen again in a few years.

 

[Tsumi]

Now I'm not from the US ... so I guess I don't "get it". But the hate towards people in your own country, hell your neighbors even, just because they don't share your political views is scary. The only positive I can take away from this whole situation, is that I am glad it isn't like that where I live.

There is a huge lack of tolerance from "tolerant" people towards those that are politically incorrect.

 

[evilsofa]

There is a huge lack of tolerance from "tolerant" people towards those that are politically incorrect.

I'll remember that the next time I walk into your workplace and start yelling insults at your customers.

 

[Tsumi]

I'll remember that the next time I walk into your workplace and start yelling insults at your customers.

There is something called harassment, and we don't need "hate" and "tolerance" laws to deal with that.

 

[evilsofa]

Bingo. Either take your turn and play, or quit whining when it doesn't go the way you like.

And if it doesn't go the way you like anyway, deal with it. It'll happen again in a few years.

Good thing that hasn't happened here in the US for the past 8 years, or the right might have pursued the obstructionist tactic of doing everything possible to make the country fail just to make Obama look bad.

 

[potency]

Now I'm not from the US ... so I guess I don't "get it". But the hate towards people in your own country, hell your neighbors even, just because they don't share your political views is scary. The only positive I can take away from this whole situation, is that I am glad it isn't like that where I live.

Since 9/11 the political "middle" has shrunk and both the far-left and far-right have grown a lot. Also, it seems younger generations only know how to use their voice, not their ears, my generation included (not so young, but still). There is a political divide in this country right now second only to the Civil War era.

In the 60's and 70's there was still a lot of unrest and disagreement, but it wasn't devolved like it is today. Those of us that grew up in the 80's and 90's had it easy, and I think that may have spoiled us somewhat and left us unprepared for the real world.

 

[mope54]

Since 9/11 the political "middle" has shrunk and both the far-left and far-right have grown a lot. Also, it seems younger generations only know how to use their voice, not their ears, my generation included (not so young, but still). There is a political divide in this country right now second only to the Civil War era.

In the 60's and 70's there was still a lot of unrest and disagreement, but it wasn't devolved like it is today. Those of us that grew up in the 80's and 90's had it easy, and I think that may have spoiled us somewhat and left us unprepared for the real world.

Draax said he's from a different country. We don't have a "far-left" in this country. Bernie Sanders was the closest thing to "far-left" this country has seen in politics and even he wouldn't be seen as "far-left" by a good many other countries' standards. The things people call "far-left" in this country don't even register because they're considered by those living in advanced, industrialized, Western democratic nations as the cost of living together.

People were dying over politics in the 60's and 70's...literally dying in the streets. It's not accurate to say that these are the worst of times since the Civil War. It's true that X-gen through Z-gen have enjoyed an expansion of civil rights (that happened as a consequence of those previous turbulent decades), but that pendulum has already been swinging the other way. There have been a myriad of issues that the younger generations could have rallied around--and from my perspective it seems like people generally have been doing so. There have been issues like mass incarceration, funding for public education, global banking and loans, domestic banking, S&L, a slew of environmental concerns ranging from the ocean to the atmosphere, and a few wars. Recently we've seen a fight for and eventual recognition of same-sex couples' rights, legalization of marijuana, and reduction in sentencing disparities.

 

[Dishpan]

The level of stupid in this thread saddens me. A tech guy wants to leave the union, and people pile on about their hate for Californians for one reason or another. Then it gets hijacked into a R vs D shit show. You guys know your PC hardware, but political debates and tact for each other leave a lot to be desired.

 

[Stryker7314]

Californians are not passive like conserv-tards would have you think. More U.S. military members come from Cali than any state; 12% of the total U.S. military force. Followed by texas at 9% (suck it texans), then florida at 7%, everyone else is less than 5% and most are at 1%.

Numbers don't lie. Conservatives just have a big mouth and try to downplay Cali, when in actuality Cali folks are more badass and do more serving their country than talking. Don't believe everything you see in the news from pea-brain conserv-tards.

TL;DR - Cali people more badass than southern/conserv-tard pussies.

BTW - you so-called "country-boys" are looking very pretty lately.

 

[Tsumi]

Californians are not passive like conserv-tards would have you think. More U.S. military members come from Cali than any state; 12% of the total U.S. military force. Followed by texas at 9% (suck it texans), then florida at 7%, everyone else is less than 5% and most are at 1%.

Numbers don't lie. Conservatives just have a big mouth and try to downplay Cali, when in actuality Cali folks are more badass and do more seving their country than talking. Don't believe everything you see in the news from pea-brain conserv-tards.

TL;DR - Cali people more badass than southern/conserv-tard pussies.

BTW - you so-called "country-boys" are looking very pretty lately.

When California has 12.18% of the US population, Texas has 8.55% of the population, and Florida has 6.3% of the population, your argument completely falls apart. In fact, the only state with greater than 5% of the population that does not make up more than 5% of the armed forces is New York.

However, upon fact checking your claims, you look even more stupid. According to this website, http://www.governing.com/gov-data/m...duty-employee-workforce-numbers-by-state.html, 9% of military members come from California, 8.2% from Texas, 6.1% from North Carolina, 5.6% from Virginia, and 4.5% from Florida. However, that is just where they live/are stationed. When looking only at recruitment, you find that in general Democratic states have fewer enlistments than Republican states. http://ijr.com/2015/02/251918-data-shows-highest-numbers-united-states-military-come/ http://www.heritage.org/research/re...-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers

Yes, there are exceptions, like Utah and Maine, but I think the graphics speak for themselves.

 

[Stryker7314]

2007 charts? Never go full conserv-tard. Heres some current ones little guy. Read it and weep. If you can read that is; obviously not. 12% of the total military force is made up of Californians. That is recruitment, and not based on where they are currently stationed or percentage of U.S. population. Don't get triggered cause you just found out conserv-tards are actually big pussies compared to Californians. LMAO!

https://www.cna.org/pop-rep/2014/appendixb/appendixb.pdf#page114

 

[Tsumi]

2007 charts? Never go full conserv-tard. Heres some current ones little guy. Read it and weep. If you can read that is; obviously not. 12% of the total military force is made up of Californians. That is recruitment, and not based on where they are currently stationed or percentage of U.S. population. Don't get triggered cause you just found out conserv-tards are actually big pussies compared to Californians. LMAO!

https://www.cna.org/pop-rep/2014/appendixb/appendixb.pdf#page114

You just went full stupid. Never go full stupid.

Were you even able to comprehend those numbers? Did you see the link showing 2015 data?

Let's take line California. 11.7% of enlistments came from California. California has 13.5% of the 18-24 year old population. That gives a ratio of 0.87, higher than 2007 numbers but still under 1.

Let's take line Texas. 9.9% of enlistments came from Texas. Texas has 8.7% of the 18-24 year old population. That gives a ratio of 1.14, lower than 2007 but still significantly higher than California.

How about one of the worst offenders, New York? 4.6% of enlistments are from New York. New York has 6.5% of the 18-24 year old population. That gives a ratio of 0.71. Slightly better than 2007 numbers, but still disproves your point.

Florida. 7.9% and 5.3%. Ratio of 1.49.

Trying to act smart while using stupid memes and insulting others only makes you a laughingstock. I think you are the only one that is triggered here.

 

[Stryker7314]

You just went full stupid. Never go full stupid.

Were you even able to comprehend those numbers? Did you see the link showing 2015 data?

Let's take line California. 11.7% of enlistments came from California. California has 13.5% of the 18-24 year old population. That gives a ratio of 0.87, higher than 2007 numbers but still under 1.

Let's take line Texas. 9.9% of enlistments came from Texas. Texas has 8.7% of the 18-24 year old population. That gives a ratio of 1.14, lower than 2007 but still significantly higher than California.

How about one of the worst offenders, New York? 4.6% of enlistments are from New York. New York has 6.5% of the 18-24 year old population. That gives a ratio of 0.71. Slightly better than 2007 numbers, but still disproves your point.

Florida. 7.9% and 5.3%. Ratio of 1.49.

Trying to act smart while using stupid memes and insulting others only makes you a laughingstock. I think you are the only one that is triggered here.

Never once mentioned ratios here little guy. Learn to read. Percentage of total military force was the topic, try and keep up.

Love your ancient 2007 charts though, nice try little timmy. Participation award for you. And the insults started on your end when you found the truth and couldn't handle it. I can see how it can be painful for you though, finding Californians are more men than "country boys."

 

[Tsumi]

Never once mentioned ratios here little guy. Learn to read. Percentage of total military force was the topic, try and keep up.

Love your ancient 2007 charts though, nice try little timmy. Participation award for you. And the insults started on your end when you found the truth and couldn't handle it. I can see how it can be painful for you though, finding Californians are more men than "country boys."

In order for your argument to hold water, it must be normalized to the populations of each state. The fact that you are unable to recognize this shows how illogical and ignorant you are. Raw numbers mean absolutely nothing without context, it is just a fallacy.

Additionally, I had a 2015 link with pictures to look at, but obviously you are unable to do proper comprehension. You are also unable to argue without insulting, further undermining your position and argument.

Sorry, am I using too much advanced vocabulary and logic for you? It might explain why you remain blinded to the truth.

 

[c3k]

Now I'm not from the US ... so I guess I don't "get it". But the hate towards people in your own country, hell your neighbors even, just because they don't share your political views is scary. The only positive I can take away from this whole situation, is that I am glad it isn't like that where I live.

What's interesting is that this demonstrated "hate" is a liberal phenomenon. When obama was elected, many conservatives recognized him for what he was: a dedicated socialist with an agenda very much opposed to the Constitution. ("I have a pen and a phone". "For the first time in my adult life, I'm proud of my country." Etc.)

PLEASE, leftists, if you disagree with the above, just leave it be. I -know- you disagree. The man was elected...and then re-elected. I am only writing about the viewpoint of the conservatives.

How many riots and mass protests did you see in 2008 and 2012? How many school walkouts? How many crying jags by public figures? How many elected officials of the other party publicly stated they would not follow the rule of law? How many adverts offering paid compensation for taking part in "demonstrations" (with the expectations of "active" participation)? How many decried the "hate crimes" by telling me "I didn't earn that"?

During the election cycle, and afterwards, how may Hillary supporters were attacked, pummeled, or assaulted? Compare that to the number of Trump supporters who have been physically assaulted.

Yes, there is a lot of hate. It is all being created by the "inclusive" party of "liberalism". Their perspective is reliant upon the coercion of others. It is a mob-based mentality. It needs to be, because socialism cannot stand if individuals opt out of it.

Trump's win was surprising to the left and the media (which means the same thing), because they made it "uncool", if not downright dangerous, to voice your support of Trump (or opposition to Hillary). So, all the Trump voters kept mum...and went to the voting booth.

 

[Stryker7314]

When California has 12.18% of the US population, Texas has 8.55% of the population, and Florida has 6.3% of the population, your argument completely falls apart. In fact, the only state with greater than 5% of the population that does not make up more than 5% of the armed forces is New York.

However, upon fact checking your claims, you look even more stupid. According to this website, http://www.governing.com/gov-data/m...duty-employee-workforce-numbers-by-state.html, 9% of military members come from California, 8.2% from Texas, 6.1% from North Carolina, 5.6% from Virginia, and 4.5% from Florida. However, that is just where they live/are stationed. When looking only at recruitment, you find that in general Democratic states have fewer enlistments than Republican states. http://ijr.com/2015/02/251918-data-shows-highest-numbers-united-states-military-come/ http://www.heritage.org/research/re...-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers

Yes, there are exceptions, like Utah and Maine, but I think the graphics speak for themselves.

In order for your argument to hold water, it must be normalized to the populations of each state. The fact that you are unable to recognize this shows how illogical and ignorant you are. Raw numbers mean absolutely nothing without context, it is just a fallacy.

Additionally, I had a 2015 link with pictures to look at, but obviously you are unable to do proper comprehension. You are also unable to argue without insulting, further undermining your position and argument.

Sorry, am I using too much advanced vocabulary and logic for you? It might explain why you remain blinded to the truth.

Based on your inability to correctly determine the difference between the numbers 9 and 11, anything you have said after that means asolutely nothing. Also, the fact that you tried to make an argument in the year 2016 with charts from 2007 confirms you are incompetent. Keep trying to use what you consider to be "advanced vocabulary" to try and recover and I'll let you know when it works. For now your rhetoric is grade-A bullshit.

Have a good one little guy, my point has been made to the pussy conserv-tards on here bashing Californians. I'm out this miserable thread full of retards. LMAO!

 

[Tsumi]

Based on your inability to correctly determine the difference between the numbers 9 and 11, anything you have said after that means asolutely nothing. Also, the fact that you tried to make an argument in the year 2016 with charts from 2007 confirms you are incompetent. Keep trying to use what you consider to be "advanced vocabulary" to try and recover and I'll let you know when it works. For now your rhetoric is grade-A bullshit.

Have a good one little guy, my point has been made to the pussy conserv-tards on here bashing Californians. I'm out this miserable thread full of retards. LMAO!

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Or the block either.

 

[lcpiper]

Not even almost half of the voting population. Almost half of the voting population voted that both candidates weren't worth bothering with.



Facts as reported by the actual people who voted for trump. Including you.



Oh god no, the voting public is horribly informed and primarily misinformed. That at least 50% of those who vote are low information voters isn't really even debated. But anyone who voted for trump in the hope that he would somehow implement congressional term limits, well....



No it wouldn't. Your daughter like you cast a horrendously misinformed vote which is part and parcel of not knowing what or who you are voting for.

When I say "almost half of the voting population" I mean almost half of the population who actually voted. If you try hard enough you can misunderstand anything.

Go ahead and knock yourself out citing where you are drawing your facts from, those facts as you yourself listed but provided no supporting links for reference.

I voted for Trump because whether he can change term limits or not, if he even supports the idea it's already a head start in the right direction. It's an indication that at least one of the candidates might think the way I do. Call it an empty promise if you want, I knew going in that he did not himself as president have the authority to make it happen. The fact that he is in favor and would support it is good enough for me, doubly so considering the only alternative was a complete no-go for me. I would have voted for Ronald McDonald over Hillary Clinton.

And it's still arrogant as hell to claim that all those who voted for Trump didn't know who or why they chose him over Hillary.

 

[Dahkoht]

If Democrats will keep going on like Stryker , and the safe space crying universities , I feel confident Trumps in for 8 years.

Laura Ingaham as press secretary will have me watching her bitch slap the whining press in daily briefings.

I don't remember mechanics in Michigan or Texas crying for days off work due to being distressed in the past over elections , nor burning down buildings and shutting down freeways. Course it's what the base of the Democratic Party does , cry , riot and loot. What a great upstanding group of folks.

I pray the liberals continue acting like this , it'll guarantee they won't win be presidency for quite a while again.

The most amusing part is Mr Rich Liberal Elite CEO who wants CA to secede would get mugged in most inner city democratic neighborhoods full of his fellow party members.

 

[Ranulfo]

I had $1200 reasons to vote for Trump in 2016. Thanks to my health insurance company, about ten days before the election I got 25% or so more reasons, $936 reasons to be exact. From 2015 to 2017 my health "insurance" premiums have gone up over $2k/year. You don't have to be "educated" to understand basic math. Of course that was just reason number one to vote for the guy. Oh and my new plan wouldn't be covering pediatric dental insurance which I am legally required to have due to obamacare. I have no kids though. How much more will that be? I can go search on the feds website for new plans though! If you like plan, you can keep your plan! I had a 3 month wait to get a new doctor this year. Ain't it fun? But yeah, I'm just an uneducated, racist, bigot, homophobe, transgenderphobe, sexist... being jammed into the poor house by corrupt worthless government stooges on all sides.

As for secession with CA... hah! Good luck. Even if they get out with their current borders, they will immediately be fighting internal insurrections/civil wars unless they have US Gov backstopping them with military power. Also, that might cause secession movements in the southwestern states who might want to also go along with them or on their own. Most people north of Redding CA would want to go it alone and form their own state (Jefferson). That might take southern/eastern Oregon and eastern Washington with them for the same reasons as the SW. That is just the political side of things. Then you have the resources issues many have touched on. SoCal wants water? Probably going to be paying a lot to Colorado etc. for it, maybe the Feds get you a good deal because you're dealing with them directly. No water, no farming, let alone no water for all the people in LA basin. Electricity? Same thing. Hello negotiations with Arizona, NV and Oregon. CA has been so green environmentally because they've offloaded their production of resources/energy to other states. Legally, they could split up into several states with the blessing of the Feds and any other states involved but good luck. It opens up a can of worms.


As to secession being legal, of course it is. You'll just have to back it up with guns and political/cultural will. The most easiest way is when/if the Feds have no power to keep the leavers in the union. West Virginia was only illegal in the sense that Virginia didn't give its consent. Though it would be hypocritical of them to complain since they wanted out from the Feds. US presidents since have long waxed poetically about the right of self-determination but they usually don't actually allow it unless it benefits them politically. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. The Articles of Confederation said they were perpetual but those lasted less than 15 years. That is about all the Supremes* have to go on. You can say the south/Texas can't but well, that kinda destroys the 14th amendment aka the equality clause. The New England states wanted out around the war of 1812. Bitched about it for 10 years or so.

(I don't care what the Taco Supreme Court says. The court is now blatantly political and anything is constitutional if a mere 5 judges say it is.)

 

[lcpiper]

When California has 12.18% of the US population, Texas has 8.55% of the population, and Florida has 6.3% of the population, your argument completely falls apart. In fact, the only state with greater than 5% of the population that does not make up more than 5% of the armed forces is New York.

However, upon fact checking your claims, you look even more stupid. According to this website, http://www.governing.com/gov-data/m...duty-employee-workforce-numbers-by-state.html, 9% of military members come from California, 8.2% from Texas, 6.1% from North Carolina, 5.6% from Virginia, and 4.5% from Florida. However, that is just where they live/are stationed. When looking only at recruitment, you find that in general Democratic states have fewer enlistments than Republican states. http://ijr.com/2015/02/251918-data-shows-highest-numbers-united-states-military-come/ http://www.heritage.org/research/re...-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers

Yes, there are exceptions, like Utah and Maine, but I think the graphics speak for themselves.

try being a little less dependent on charts and reports and better understand your subject. As an example, the Active Duty Army has several "Commands", for instance I used to work for NETCOM,(Army Network Command) Now I work under CECOM, (The Army Communications and Electronics Command). Only two Commands have combat troops, Forces Command and Special Operations Command, known as FORSCOM and SOCOM. Army bases are known by the Command they belong to, for instance, Fort Hood is a FORSCOM and Fort Huachuca where I work is a TRADOC base under Training and Doctrine Command.

What I am getting at, is that although there are many soldiers and many bases all over the US, when it comes to a fight and the heavy units that actual do that fighting, Texas has the mostet. You ever here a commant like "We are bigger on paper.............."

So keep on thinking I am looking stupid. It will not move those tanks, armored personnel carriers, self propelled guns, and mobile anti-air defense systems from Fort Hood. It will not relocate the NCOs and Officers who know how to maintain and operate them or the support soldiers who help keep them going, or the Officers who know how to maneuver them. And don't look to find such knowledge in other places because it's a fleeting thing. Fort Leavenworth Kansas is the TRADOC base for training tankers. It's the Armor school. They know a lot about tanks there but it's no different than any other school in the Army, there is the way they do it in the school house, and then there is the way they do it in the field. What I am saying is that not everything is in the manuals.

I'll leave you with some pictures and the explanation that you don't see many of these anywhere else in the Army. Everywhere else it's mostly Strykers and MRAPs, HUMVEEs, the police force trainer legacy of the Iraq Afghanistan Wars. And I would remind people of what these things can look like elsewhere and why what we have is so important.

 

[Gorankar]

I say, let CA vote to stay, or leave, by county.



Barely 65 messages, and already on ignore for talking like a dick.

 

[potency]

Draax said he's from a different country. We don't have a "far-left" in this country. Bernie Sanders was the closest thing to "far-left" this country has seen in politics and even he wouldn't be seen as "far-left" by a good many other countries' standards. The things people call "far-left" in this country don't even register because they're considered by those living in advanced, industrialized, Western democratic nations as the cost of living together.

People were dying over politics in the 60's and 70's...literally dying in the streets. It's not accurate to say that these are the worst of times since the Civil War. It's true that X-gen through Z-gen have enjoyed an expansion of civil rights (that happened as a consequence of those previous turbulent decades), but that pendulum has already been swinging the other way. There have been a myriad of issues that the younger generations could have rallied around--and from my perspective it seems like people generally have been doing so. There have been issues like mass incarceration, funding for public education, global banking and loans, domestic banking, S&L, a slew of environmental concerns ranging from the ocean to the atmosphere, and a few wars. Recently we've seen a fight for and eventual recognition of same-sex couples' rights, legalization of marijuana, and reduction in sentencing disparities.

People are still literally dying in the streets today over political beliefs.

 

[thejokker]

Don't see this happening myself but I can see why they would want to. Racist president who wishes to ban 1.6 billion people from entering our country. Wants to build a wall high enough and deep into the earth enough to block all of Mexico from entering our country, illegal or not. Why on earth would someone want to leave all this, Make America Great Again. I'm not going anywhere but I can see why people are upset. I am pale of skin so I'm not in fear of deportation but I know a ton of people that are and the only people I know are actually documented residents or simply citizens of the U.S.. Profiling has been going on for a long time. The only thing that can be done now is as the ACLU is doing now, blocking unconstitutional amendments as they happen from the White House when it is his time to be in charge. I'm just glad my job is not in jeopardy and I have no family members in fear of being kicked out of this country.

I don't think you understand the definition of racist. A person who feels "some" people of a particular race have negative qualities is not racist because it is the negative qualities he is judging them by not race. If Trump felt "all" members of a particular race has negative qualities than he would be a racist but that is not the case. It is not a valid conclusion to generalize a statement specifying "some" into an "all" statement.

A wall would not prevent all Mexicans from entering the country only those without permission. "Some" Mexicans are criminals therefore it is logical we would wish to restrict their access. "Some" Mexicans would be excellent citizens with talents that would contribute to our country therefore it is logical to allow them access. A wall and immigration laws already on the books are tools to control access to both the desirable and undesirable.

 

[mope54]

You have your perceptions about race and racism all twisted.

Pertaining to Trump, he labeled "Mexicans" and said "they" were not sending us their best workers and then proceeded to discuss a litany of illegal behavior illegal immigrants have behaved in while in this country. So he first impugns an entire category and country for the behavior of some as if the nation-state has any relationship to the people streaming through its barriers.

It's the same kind of ridiculousness of Europeans considering that all "Americans" are rude simply because of some US tourists' behavior, but taking it to the extreme stupidity of them declaring, "gee the US is obviously not sending us their best tourists, we should talk to the President about this."

Then at the end of his talking point he tacked on, "well I'm sure some are good people."
The implication to any reasonable person is that he believes the Mexican immigrant population is, in general, a nasty and criminal lot of people with some exception. That's a completely different statement from claiming that they are generally a hard-working, good values oriented group of people with some exception of criminals among them.

The English that I grew up with, and from talking to people over the course of my lifetime, would have me phrasing that sentiment thusly, "the Mexican people are a great, hard-working lot of people whose values I admire, but there are some among them that are behaving criminally and we need to do something about that."

I could say, "this is a shitty place, albeit some people are cool" and that's a completely different emphasis than "this is a rather cool place, albeit some people are shitheads." An honest interpretation of his comments are that he was making a political point that immigrants aren't generally trustable albeit allowing that some of them might be ok (and this sentiment was mirrored in his talking points regarding muslims).


Now, beyond that he also makes a rather traditional racist conflation, which you've reiterated in your post. The big issue to someone who knows better is that the people he's talking about aren't even Mexicans by and large. The migratory flow has been from the US back to Mexico for the past couple years. If you actually read the news articles themselves, rather than opinions about the events, the criminals and heavy migration are coming from really shitty places like Guatemala, El Salvador, and Columbia, etc. There are places in Central and South America that US citizens don't even recognize as being part of the continent "America" and that's ignoring the Eastern migratory patterns that would be more dominated by Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans, for example.

Simply because they have a similar skin hue, speak a language derivative of Spanish, and share adjoining land masses they're now all "Mexican." That's ignorant and just plain factually wrong. It, along with the shit that Muslims and brown-skinned people have had to field since 9/11, is more of the same brown as Other villianization that scapegoats minorities for the problems of society as a whole. It's unfounded. And even more, issues like NAFTA and global trade agreements were things have "liberal" sociologists and "professional protestors" have been discussing and activating around since approximately the 1960's.

People have been talking about global capitalism and the movement of factories into underdeveloped countries for a long, long, long time. Now that the rust belt population is starting to realize their jobs are never coming back they want to try and rewind the clock...a clock that unfortunately can't be rewound. NAFTA, a huge crime bill package, and welfare reform were passed under Clinton but he wasn't a "liberal" by any means and those kinds of things were bigly discriminatory against minority populations and wreaked economical havoc on certain communities and not others. They were protested against by the so-called "leftists" in our population and continue to be examined and debunked as good policy by so-called left-leaning academics.

Case in point, Bernie Sanders was against NAFTA, against expanding the criminal justice system and determinant sentencing, and against Clinton's welfare reform that was an effective "end welfare as we know it." We simply don't have a "left" political party structure in this country and I don't see how anyone would see Trump as an antidote to a (non-existent) leftward slant to political policy since he's not a conservative by my measure, he's simply a nationalist/populist. Rebel rousing is fun, it brings a lot of energy to the room, and it's cathartic to those feeling pangs from the establishment, but it doesn't lead to good governance and it isn't likely to lead to good policy decisions. The political establishment is simply too entrenched to be remedied by one aspirational leader. That's what the democrats miscalculated with Obama. Mere persona can not move bedrock. Besides, I don't know how anyone sane can argue that replacing political cronyism with blatant nepotism is a good substitute.

 

[Gorankar]

Every single illegal immigrant, is in fact, a criminal.

 

[staknhalo]

Every single illegal immigrant, is in fact, a criminal.

Hence, the word illegal.

Also, for everyone who thinks it's 'oh so racist' to dislike illegal immigration and want to fix/rectify it (including deportation), talk to some legal immigrants - they hate illegal immigrants the most.

 

[mope54]

You guys are simply restating the obvious. Hopefully you don't start flooding other threads with equally pointless declarations like, "water is wet" or "salt is salty." Aside from that, you're being unnecessarily pedantic.

Trump didn't limit his point to illegal immigration or even illegal immigrants, in general.

He specifically stated that Mexico wasn't sending us it's best and then laid a bunch of serious, violent crimes at the feet of Mexican immigrants. He didn't distinguish between legal or illegal immigration and he certainly didn't distinguish between Mexican vs. other latin immigration patterns.

 

[htpc_user]

The land California resides on was ceded to the United States in 1848 by Mexico. Hopefully California's military is stronger than Mexico's.

This made me LOL.

 

[staknhalo]

You guys are simply restating the obvious. Hopefully you don't start flooding other threads with equally pointless declarations like, "water is wet" or "salt is salty." Aside from that, you're being unnecessarily pedantic.

Trump didn't limit his point to illegal immigration or even illegal immigrants, in general.

He specifically stated that Mexico wasn't sending us it's best and then laid a bunch of serious, violent crimes at the feet of Mexican immigrants. He didn't distinguish between legal or illegal immigration and he certainly didn't distinguish between Mexican vs. other latin immigration patterns.

And Hillary Clinton called black people super predators; your point?

Anyway, I personally believe sane people knew he was talking about illegal immigrants in context - as I and others interpreted it; except for those people who would want to latch onto anything and everything he said and cry "RACISM!" or "MISOGYNY!" - and look how good that worked out for them lol

 

[mope54]

I don't understand how that has anything to do with my points. It looks like a non-sequitur, but if you really want to go down that path do some rudimentary research and you'll find many people took Clinton to task for that and, in fact, she's received tremendous backlash from both voters and academics over both her comments and policies she supported since the 90's.

Ooh wait, I get the connection. Because I think people calling anyone with brown skin a Mexican or muslim and saying they're responsible for the violent crime in this country is racist, you must think I'm a Clinton supporter? That's your logic, right? Well, think again kiddo.


Cool, you added more to your post. No, clearly he was not talking about illegal immigrants as the reason for them being criminals. He said, they weren't sending us their best because they are rapists and murders. Are you ESL? First language speakers would understand that as the murder/rape being the "criminal" act he was referencing.

Also, you are completely skipping over the lengthy post I made explaining why labeling any of this as "Mexican" is incorrect and racist. But you keep banging that gong because I'm sure it sounds lovely in your ears or you wouldn't keep doing it.

 

[htpc_user]

Don't see this happening myself but I can see why they would want to. Racist president who wishes to ban 1.6 billion people from entering our country. Wants to build a wall high enough and deep into the earth enough to block all of Mexico from entering our country, illegal or not. Why on earth would someone want to leave all this, Make America Great Again. I'm not going anywhere but I can see why people are upset. I am pale of skin so I'm not in fear of deportation but I know a ton of people that are and the only people I know are actually documented residents or simply citizens of the U.S.. Profiling has been going on for a long time. The only thing that can be done now is as the ACLU is doing now, blocking unconstitutional amendments as they happen from the White House when it is his time to be in charge. I'm just glad my job is not in jeopardy and I have no family members in fear of being kicked out of this country.

If the people you know are documented citizens then why would they be in fear of being sent any where?

Why is it racist to require people to follow the rules? That's what I don't get. If you follow the rules of immigrating then I have no problem with anyone coming here. But if you just run here because you can and know if you keep a low profile that no one's going to question you then I have a problem with it. You've got people following the rules of coming here and becoming a citizen; how is it fair to those people that they followed the proper procedure and then you have those that took a shortcut.

 

[evilsofa]

The level of stupid in this thread saddens me. A tech guy wants to leave the union, and people pile on about their hate for Californians for one reason or another. Then it gets hijacked into a R vs D shit show. You guys know your PC hardware, but political debates and tact for each other leave a lot to be desired.

Oh, you just don't understand what the fun is all about. HardOCP Front Page News forum is just like arguing about politics with your relatives at Thanksgiving without having to clean up the mashed potatoes afterwards.

 

[Shogon]

A nation so "United" in being completely divided.

 

[Deleted member 204526]

If all that came out of Trump's election is that he made the left see the virtue in federalism, then it's been a great thing. The left has always abhorred states having too much power and autonomy, and I know why: because it would be too easy for people of means and businesses to flee their burdensome government with their tax dollars. The last thing they want to do is compete, because they know they'd lose; I remember well their crying about how Rick Perry was "poaching" jobs from other states for Texas.