Cavalry wrote
I didn't say illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay.
I said Trump was stupid for suggesting that a wall should be built to keep them out, especially with his caveat that they are actually being sent by the Mexican government.
Mexico is your ally, you kind of need them to like you, Trump is doing a good job of ruining that.

They should not be allowed in. If there is no wall, they will continue to come into our country. I understand that Mexico is an ally of the United States. They are our neighbor. We need to work together with them. Many Mexicans come to our country for a better life, however, they need to come in legally. The only solution to fixing this problem is by building a wall. If building a wall is going to hurt some feelings between our countries, then so be it.

No, it's not ridiculous. This is vicarious punishment. This is no different to the US authorities killing the family members of every person on the FBI's most wanted list in an attempt to make them stop killing.
It makes you the terrorist and people in Syria will not look at their dead family members who were just killed in an airstrike and blame ISIS, they will blame the US. How do I know this? Because it's already happening and they already do. Worldwide support for Islamic terrorism and hatred of the US is increasing rapidly, it has been since the start of the war on terror and it still is today.

Worldwide support of Islamic terrorists and hatred is increasing rapidly? Really? Who is supporting islamic terrorists worldwide? Besides the radicals in the Middle East, nobody is supporting islamic terrorists. Of course there are going to be the few, the very few, that will be influenced and try to commit terroristic acts against their countries (San Bernadino, Boston Marathon Bombings), but in no way is worldwide support for islamic terrorism increasing.

I was. Bin Laden should have been brought in alive.
And it's interesting that you bring up the San Bernardino shooters considering they were both US citizens.
If Trump is in favor of killing ISIS member's families I wonder if he would have been in favor of killing theirs on American soil.

Bin Laden should have been brought in alive for obvious reasons, such as interrogating, gaining intel, etc, but that obviously didn't happen. I have no problem with Bin Laden taking a bullet straight through the head. What I was referring to is the Navy Seals that took out multiple family members of Bin Laden and nobody said a thing. But when Trump says something about taking out terrorists families, everyone cries foul.

iCamp wrote They should not be allowed in. If there is no wall, they will continue to come into our country. I understand that Mexico is an ally of the United States. They are our neighbor. We need to work together with them. Many Mexicans come to our country for a better life, however, they need to come in legally. The only solution to fixing this problem is by building a wall. If building a wall is going to hurt some feelings between our countries, then so be it.

Please read the whole of this article, but focus on statements 2, 3, and 4.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

If you don't want to, in short:

- There is already a walled section of the border and it has been counterproductive.
- Mexico won't pay for the border, like Trump has said they will.
- Mexican illegal immigration is on the decline, and more Mexicans are leaving the US than are going to it.

Worldwide support of Islamic terrorists and hatred is increasing rapidly? Really? Who is supporting islamic terrorists worldwide? Besides the radicals in the Middle East, nobody is supporting islamic terrorists. Of course there are going to be the few, the very few, that will be influenced and try to commit terroristic acts against their countries (San Bernadino, Boston Marathon Bombings), but in no way is worldwide support for islamic terrorism increasing.

The Institute of Economics and Peace released their Global Terrorism Index stating that there had been a 60 percent increase in worldwide terrorism from 2012 to 2013.
Their report also found that since the year 2000 and the beginning of the war on terror, global terrorism has increased fivefold.
This isn't just in the Middle East, it has now stretched into Angola, Bangladesh, Burundi, The Central African Republic, Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Mali, Mexico, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Uganda, Indonesia, Nigeria, Egypt, etc.

If you're still not convinced:

61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans
32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans
41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans
38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans
83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose)
62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose)
42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose)
A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on Americans:
(Egypt 34%; Indonesia 45%; Pakistan 33%)
About half of those opposed to attacking Americans were sympathetic with al-Qaedas attitude toward the U.S.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Bin Laden should have been brought in alive for obvious reasons, such as interrogating, gaining intel, etc, but that obviously didn't happen. I have no problem with Bin Laden taking a bullet straight through the head. What I was referring to is the Navy Seals that took out multiple family members of Bin Laden and nobody said a thing. But when Trump says something about taking out terrorists families, everyone cries foul.

That's what I meant. I was angry that they killed his family members [as well as him], I will argue with anyone who says that they should have died, or that their deaths were necessary. It's a moot point to use against me.
The people who are both angry at Trump because of his stance on killing the family member's of ISIS and OK with the death of Bin Laden's family members are hypocrites, on that we agree.

If you don't want to, in short:

- There is already a walled section of the border and it has been counterproductive.
- Mexico won't pay for the border, like Trump has said they will.
- Mexican illegal immigration is on the decline, and more Mexicans are leaving the US than are going to it.

The wall that in place now is a joke. The one act that I know of regarding the wall is called the Secure Fence Act of 2006. The wall that is being used now is essentially a double chained link fence with barbed wire. It's nothing compared to the wall that Trump has proposed.

I have no opinion about Mexico not paying for the wall. Of course they will deny that they will build it. It's common sense to deny that.

I read part of the article about the decline of illegal immigration. It was some number like 6 million. 6 million is a lot of illegal immigrants coming into this country. Regardless if it is declining, it is still a huge number.

The amount of imbeciles in this thread is unbearable.

iCamp wrote

If you don't want to, in short:

- There is already a walled section of the border and it has been counterproductive.
- Mexico won't pay for the border, like Trump has said they will.
- Mexican illegal immigration is on the decline, and more Mexicans are leaving the US than are going to it.

The wall that in place now is a joke. The one act that I know of regarding the wall is called the Secure Fence Act of 2006. The wall that is being used now is essentially a double chained link fence with barbed wire. It's nothing compared to the wall that Trump has proposed.

I have no opinion about Mexico not paying for the wall. Of course they will deny that they will build it. It's common sense to deny that.

I read part of the article about the decline of illegal immigration. It was some number like 6 million. 6 million is a lot of illegal immigrants coming into this country. Regardless if it is declining, it is still a huge number.

The reason why the current wall has become counterproductive isn't because it can't keep people out, it does that just fine. It's that the illegal immigrants who want to return home can't get past it, so they stay.

In an article in Foreign Policy, Princeton sociologist Douglas Massey said that evidence shows that money spent on border enforcement, wall included, is worse than useless its counterproductive. The militarization of the border, as Massey calls it, made it harder, if not impossible, for immigrant workers to go back home as they did before the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act was enacted. Researchers estimate that tightening of border enforcement since 1986 actually added 4 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. in 2010.

If Mexico is saying that they won't pay for the wall then you and Donald Trump have to assume that they aren't going to pay for the wall.
How you have just responded to that point is exactly how Donald Trump would have in a debate:

Moderator: Donald, the Mexican President has said that he will not pay for your border wall, how do you intend to pay for such a huge project?
Donald Trump: I love Mexico, I think they're great, they have some of the best of the best in the world, love them, they're great.
Of course they're going to say they won't pay for the wall. But they will. You know why? Because I'm going to Make America Great Again.
*Thunderous applause*

The number of illegal immigrants in the US declined by 1 million in a single year.
That means that if the current trend continues, the amount will be at 0 in 6 years.
Trump's wall will take years to build and it will cost billions, and by the time it has been built illegal immigration could be at a manageable level anyway. The wall they have in place at the moment is keeping illegal immigrants in. Trump's 1000 mile wall will just keep those immigrants in and those numbers will skyrocket.

He also decreased the size of his wall from 2000 miles to 1000 miles because there are 'natural barriers.'
Trump seriously overestimates the amount of respect humans have for 'natural barriers.'
This species which has climbed Everest and dove into the Mariana Trench.
Any natural barrier Trump hopes is going to keep immigrants out will be traversed by them because they are desperate.

I'm voting for Bernie Sanders even though he dropped out lol

Cavalry wrote All of you saying that you're not voting because they're all bad...

Do you really think that a presidential candidate is going to come along with whom you agree on every single point?
Would the ray of sunshine flying out of their mouth when they talk just be the deciding factor?

Of course you're not going to agree with one candidate on everything, you just have to figure out who you agree with the most and on what issues you find to be the most important.

If I could vote in the US election I'd be voting for Bernie Sanders for all of the reasons that Yin has already stated.
He's easily one of the most non-corrupt, anti-corruption, pro-equality, pro-secularism, anti-interventionist candidates since JFK.

If it were possible for someone outside of the US to travel to the US just for the purpose of voting I would have already booked the time off work.

I can't think of a single attack levied against Sanders besides, 'He's going to make the US like China, or Soviet Russia!'
No, Democratic Socialism. Pretty much the entirety of Europe is some form of Democratic Socialism, look at Denmark and Sweden for the most 'extreme' examples.

In fact, most of Hilary Clinton's attacks on Bernie Sanders begin with the phrase 'I am more...'
As in, 'I am more pro-equality than Bernie Sanders'
or, 'I am more anti-wall street than Bernie Sanders'

Those aren't attacks, they're admissions that Bernie is what 90% of the US want in a President, she just has to try to prove that she is 'More' than he is.
More pro-equality? Bernie was campaigning for black civil rights when MLK Jr was in his prime, campaigning for the rights of gay soldiers all the way back in 1995 and he was campaigning for transgender rights before transgender rights were even considered an option, it was like campaigning for pedophile rights when he was doing it.

And anti-wall street? If she's so anti-wall street why hasn't she released her transcripts of speeches that she gave to wall street? Because she told them that they were being given a bad reputation by the media and that it was all blown out of proportion, people in those speeches have told news agencies that this is what she said, and she continues to refuse to release her transcripts.

Trump? The man who said that to beat ISIS we need to be like ISIS and take out their family members too?
The man who wants to build a wall to keep out the Mexicans being, 'sent over by the Mexican Government to ruin the American economy.' Even though Mexico is one of the US' major allies?
Yes, that is the kind of man we need running one of the most powerful countries on the planet.
That is the kind of man we need with the nuclear codes.

There are actually two that I would have voted for: Gary Johnson and Ron Paul. Too bad they're Libertarian as myself and they have no chance against Hilary or Trump.

Injustice wrote If you can vote and you don't , you're equally as responsible for whoever ends up in office as the people that voted for them. You need to be glad you have a right to express your opinion , get educated on the major issues and vote for who you want to see lead out country. Please don't stand by and watch when you have a voice, and a chance to change something bigger than yourself.

You're a moron telling someone else to get educated. You're saying that because others don't vote, if Trump gets elected, we're all responsible.

You do realize that the candidate with the most votes does not always win...right?

Any basic high school civics class would teach you what the electoral college is and how a President is decided on.