After the Johnson/Weld crashes and burns, that will be the next task at hand. Accountability needs to be restored to the movement, or it will die.Originally Posted by Petar
It is dead, its members who are not mentally handicapped by Political Correctness, Autism, pathological altruism, open border insanity are joining the Alt right. You can not have liberty if you are out numbered and out voted by imported hordes of leftists.
I'm not ready to stick a fork in it quite yet. Hopefully Johnson/Weld completely implode and a better movement can be forged from there.
But whose plan calls for "rounding up" 11+ million illegals?
R∃VO˩UTION
"Anyone who is in the United States illegally is subject to deportation." -- Donald Trump
"For those here today illegally who are seeking legal status, they will have one route and only one route: to return home and apply for re-entry under the rules of the new legal immigration system." -- Donald Trump
"Within ICE I'm going to create a new special deportation task force." -- Donald Trump
"No amnesty, no legalization. No sanctuary cities." -- Donald Trump's campaign manager
Hold it right there. Johnson is on the record saying "Gun Control Sounds Terrific BUT! I Think It Makes This Country LESS Safe!"
Then he doesn't listen to himself then...since he picked a Veep who is in favor of gun control.
“The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner
His VP candidate won't be Veep of anything, even if Johnson wins some states and comes out ahead in an indecisive election: the 12th Amendment directs the House to choose from the top three candidates, but the Senate chooses from the top two VP candidates.
Well, if the appeal is civil liberty then I'm ok. ANd actually, if they would confine their social engineering attempts to the state level, I'd be ok. As a constitutional conservative, I recognize the right of states to enact laws even if I disagree with those laws. But that's never what they are.
Nothing about that says anything about "rounding up" illegals. From my understanding, his plan is to enforce immigration law and deport illegals as they come through the system and to abandon Obama's catch and release policy.
Notice he said, "subject to" deportation, and that they'd create a new deportation "task force" within ICE. This leads me to believe that a shift is still in the works, and that illegals will be reviewed and given an opportunity to stay in the US. In the past Donald has said that he would give illegals an expedited immigration process to come back into the US. I still think he will shift on this and just give those illegals a form of legalization and save the US the costs of deporting "good" illegals by just giving them some form of legal status.
R∃VO˩UTION
How will they deport them without rounding them up?
What is the sense of deporting 11 million illegal aliens, at great cost to the American taxpayer, to then let them back into the US? What would the point even be? Why would I want my tax dollars used to forcibly remove millions of people from the country so that they could then come right back into the country? That's retarded.Notice he said, "subject to" deportation, and that they'd create a new deportation "task force" within ICE. This leads me to believe that a shift is still in the works, and that illegals will be reviewed and given an opportunity to stay in the US. In the past Donald has said that he would give illegals an expedited immigration process to come back into the US.
Or this could totally turn into Nazi $#@!, with law enforcement officers going overboard on arrests and deportations, and illegals ending up dead. Given our current "criminal justice system"...I still think he will shift on this and just give those illegals a form of legalization and save the US the costs of deporting "good" illegals by just giving them some form of legal status.
http://archive.is/qPxNn#selection-1495.0-1527.38In an interview Thursday with TownHall.com editor Guy Benson, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson strongly pushed back at the use of the term "illegal immigrant" to describe people who have entered the U.S. ilegally.
They should be referred to as "Undocumented," he said. "By the way, if you use the term ‘illegal immigrants’ that is very incendiary to our Hispanic population here in this country."
Benson followed up, asking: "Why is that?"
The former New Mexico governor noted that, "it just is. It just is. Just so that you know. So that you know and you don’t have to use that term."
Benson replied: "But isn’t the term accurate, in the sense that they entered the country, they emigrated to the country, illegally?"
Johnson raised his voice, saying: "They came into this country because they couldn’t get in legally, and the jobs existed! And you or I would have done the same thing. And we're talking about now, coming from New Mexico, a population with 48% Hispanic, how’s the crackdown on 11 million undocumented workers gonna work out? It’s gonna be dragging people from their homes; that’s how it’s gonna work out."
"It is going to be checking your papers, house to house, and I gotta tell you: what Donald Trump is saying regarding immigration could not be more incendiary. It’s insulting to me, coming from New Mexico," he said.
"Is it an illegal act to enter the country in violation of immigration laws," Benson asked again.
"Technically, yes," Johnson replied.
Let's recap: It's now offensive, incendiary, insulting and hateful to call illegal immigrants, illegal immigrants - Says the leader of the "libertarian" party.
The only thing more pathetic than seeing Gary Johnson pander like a $2 harlot to the regressive left is seeing his sad little supporters tie themselves in knots trying to excuse him essentially sounding like an authoritarian democrat meets a left-wing northeastern Republican. Frankly, I find the notion of Gary Johnson identifying as a libertarian incendiary and insulting, particularly to my intelligence.
This is the kind crap that he worries about.
He goes berserk over using the accurate term illegal immigrant. But due process, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 14th Amendments are all negotiable. And he supported Obama's executive amnesty even though when he was pressed he wasn't sure that is was constitutional. He doesn't get triggered when his co-President praises Stephen Breyer or advocates taking guns away without due process.
At this point, I see no reason to support the LP over the Republican Party. They are just as unprincipled as Republicans. But instead of having a chance to win. They play spoiler. There are far more libertarians within the Republican party.
Last edited by Krugminator2; 09-03-2016 at 03:53 PM.
There were some signs that the Libertarian Party was becoming a mockery of itself when Bob Barr managed to weasel his way into the presidential nomination. I bit the bullet and supported Johnson over Romney in 2012, but in retrospect I think I chose an equal evil to Romney in the process. I'm not making that mistake again, and it is sad that several others on here will do just that.
His point, I imagine, is that, since illegal immigration is a victimless crime, he doesn't like characterizing them as criminals.
Just as, since he's anti-prohibition, he presumably wouldn't like characterizing people convicted of drug offenses as criminals.
But, by all means Trumpkins, have a good anti-PC fapping session over this.
Why don't you just give up on this "libertarian" facade and vote for Hillary, there is no relevant difference between her and Johnson at this point. Hope you're digging the whole TPP thing too, you'll be voting in favor of that too come November, along with the baby-killing and the sodomy.
Hillary wants to abolish the Fed and return to the gold standard?
Balance the budget through spending cuts?
Opposes bailouts?
Opposes Keynesian stimulus?
Opposes labor unions?
Opposes the minimum wage?
Opposes the PATRIOT Act?
Opposed the Iraq, Libya, and Syria Wars?
Favors immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan?
...need I go on, or do you now appreciate the absurdity of your claim?
Of really? Well then by all means libtards, let's make it a circle jerk (I hear you guys like that) - since presumably you're having a good anti-sovereignty fapping session over the globalist fascist takeover known as the TPP that your guy supports.
It doesn't actually take away sovereignty. That is something Alex Jones, the John Birch Society, and unfortunately Ron Paul spout. Free trade agreements can be broken at anytime by either party. If there is a particularly bad ruling in a trade dispute that goes against the US, then there is no obligation for us to comply.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/09/...nership/#myth6
Yup
The only reason a libertarian should oppose FTAs like the TPP is if they actually don't (as they purport to do) reduce barriers to trade.
The TPP isn't finalized/published yet, but if we look at past FTAs, they did indeed reduce barriers to trade, and I expect the TPP will too.
The result won't be free trade, but freer trade, which is a step in the right direction.
In any event, as you say, it's certainly not the OMG-NWO-Globalist-Takeover-OMG!!! hobgoblin that some make it out to be.
It's an illegal transfer of power. Patently. There's no "yup" nothin. Managed trade is not free trade either.YupOriginally Posted by Krugminator2
It doesn't actually take away sovereignty. That is something Alex Jones, the John Birch Society, and unfortunately Ron Paul spout. Free trade agreements can be broken at anytime by either party. If there is a particularly bad ruling in a trade dispute that goes against the US, then there is no obligation for us to comply.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/09/...nership/#myth6
The only reason a libertarian should oppose FTAs like the TPP is if they actually don't (as they purport to do) reduce barriers to trade.
The TPP isn't finalized/published yet, but if we look at past FTAs, they did indeed reduce barriers to trade, and I expect the TPP will too.
The result won't be free trade, but freer trade, which is a step in the right direction.
In any event, as you say, it's certainly not the OMG-NWO-Globalist-Takeover-OMG!!! hobgoblin that some make it out to be.
And as I said in the neg rep I gave you, please don't speak for libertarians. You're not one.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 09-03-2016 at 05:40 PM.
Managed trade is not free trade. TPP is managed trade. Managed trade and free trade are two entirely different things. They are also two entirely contradictory things to one another. Again, the TPP is patently an illegal transfer of power from the people to a King. It gives the President sole authority without a means for consent. It sacrifices the constitution. And in secret.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 09-03-2016 at 05:54 PM.
Bunch of charlatans...
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 09-03-2016 at 05:56 PM.
What is this? Like the 30th thread on the same thing??
So once again:
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
Home run, right here.
I would beg to differ with Gary on the "not able to come here legally" thing. Actually, anyone can come here legally, and they do. I have a community full of people who started out on a path to citizenship. And I will be very frank: The ones who come here legally at great expense and hardship do not like it when people come here illegally.
#NashvilleStrong
“I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi
it is not necessarily a victimless crime.
"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."
James Madison
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams
Μολὼν λάβε
Dum Spiro, Pugno
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito
no it is not right.What is this? Like the 30th thread on the same thing??
So once again:
"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."
James Madison
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams
Μολὼν λάβε
Dum Spiro, Pugno
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito
Oh how far we have fallen since 2012 when former supporters of Ron Paul fight it out, in this case 2 people voting third party one Johnson the other Castle.
Et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos
What has these forums become? SMDH.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us