politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Will a Trump presidency really change anything for the better?
Source:
Personal Liberty
URL Source: http://personalliberty.com/will-a-t ... hange-anything-for-the-better/
Published: Mar 15, 2016
Author: Brandon Smith
Post Date: 2016-05-06 08:57:21 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 18556
Comments: 107
I want to start this analysis by stating that I fully understand the whirlwind of public interest in Donald Trump’s campaign. However, for those that don’t get it, let me break it down for you. A considerable portion of the American population considers themselves “conservative.” More than 38 percent of U.S. citizens, according to Gallup, hold conservative political and social views. Only 24 percent of the public considers themselves “liberal.” Now, I realize that the term “conservative” means different things to different people, so I would apply a simple rule to categorize them — a conservative is easiest to identify by his or her distaste for normally liberal ideological views. Beyond that, different factions of conservatives disagree on a whole host of issues. The goal of any conservative candidate that hopes to be publicly “popular,” whether he actually intends to follow through with his promises or not, is to appear to be all things to all factions; to avoid alienating one faction to appease another. After he is elected (or, after he is placed in the oval office by the powers that be), he may abandon any care for appeasing any of his constituents. Until then, he plays the game so that Americans can maintain faith in the system for at least one moment every four years. Trump’s popularity is predicated on the fact that past Republican candidates have done little to make friends with true conservatives and have not sought alliances with the factions of conservatism that have been growing in momentum and power the past two decades. In fact, the Republican candidates presented to the citizenry in recent memory have all had characteristics more akin to liberal Democrats than conservative stalwarts. Mitt Romney, for instance, was essentially a carbon copy of Barack Obama in terms of political policy and voting record, with only slightly greasier complexion and equally mysterious religious background. Election after election, conservative Americans have been offered one RINO (Republican In Name Only) candidate after another: politicians whose rhetoric sounds principled but whose record is littered with big government policies, constitutional violations, and a disregard for the intentions of the founding fathers. You cannot call yourself a “conservative” in America unless you respect the tenets of limited government, constitutional law, and a regard for the heritage of our founding principles. U.S. conservatives have not had a candidate sharing their views for a long time. Democrats may finally be experiencing a similar disenchantment with establishment candidates considering the surprising popularity of Bernie Sanders this election. The problem is, democrats are trapped in the big government mindset and are for the most part a lost cause. Their anti-establishment candidate is a self-categorized socialist, after all. The only hope for a constitutional small government candidate and a return our founding principles in politics rests in the hands of Republicans, being that third parties are quashed before they get a chance to put their foot in the door. So, you have most if not all Democratic candidates working for bigger more powerful government which leads to increased corruption and less liberty. You also have most Republicans working for bigger and more powerful government and less liberty. And you have few, if any, candidates that represent the majority of voters seeking limited constitutional government. Those of us in the liberty movement call this the “false left/right paradigm. It is the most insidious form of social control present in our nation and it makes a mockery of the election process. That is to say, elections are now nothing more than a way for international financiers and elites to keep the masses in line by allowing them to believe (falsely) that they have a “choice” and thus power to determine the future of our country. In fact, our choice is contrived and we have no political power whatsoever. The rest of America is finally starting to become aware of the false paradigm that liberty proponents have been warning about for generations. Is it any wonder that people are becoming fed up with the system? The genius of Donald Trump as an election figure is that he has little to no political history. He does not have an extensive legislative or voting record that we can look back on and determine where he stands. His political affiliations have been all over the place with him identifying as a Democrat at one time, Republican at other times, and even independent. Most of us cannot really judge his potential based on this. Hell, I was a registered Democrat early in my life, so how can I hold it against Trump? Beyond Trump’s rather disturbing past affiliation and friendship with the Clintons, he is otherwise a blank political slate. And as a blank slate, Trump can in fact present himself as all things to all people. The other ingenious aspect of the Trump campaign is really who he is running against — Hillary Clinton, a liberal candidate even more hated than Barack Obama. A candidate with a potentially serious criminal record and a penchant for an outright communistic world view. Those of us who have been in the writing field for a long time and have dabbled in fiction know that in order to create a fantastic hero, you must first put even more work into creating a fantastic villain. The hero is nothing without the villain. The outright horror inherent in the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency is like adding jet fuel to the Trump campaign. Donald Trump appears to be the perfect antithesis to Hillary Clinton. He is loud and boisterous and a bit obnoxious. He trash talks and says whatever he wants to the torment of liberals. He stomps on the throats of the political correctness police and doesn’t care if they call him a racist or a sexist or a misogynist. And, Americans love it. They can’t get enough of it. Conservatives are so tired of cultural Marxism, leftist domination of media, forced immigration policies and the protection of illegal immigration, paying for social entitlement programs, etc., that they are ready to explode. They are, in fact, ready to go to war. I would even dare to say that a Clinton presidency would lead directly to guaranteed outright civil war. This is not an exaggeration. So, the real question is, is Trump a reflection of the frustration and defiance of the conservative population, or, is he a clever ruse by the establishment to co-opt and placate the conservative population before we rebel? Again, without much political background to examine, Trump is a mystery. If Trump is a legitimate anti-establishment candidate, then here are some of the actions he would have to pursue in order to prove it: I’m sure that readers can think of many other potential actions that would help to prove beyond a doubt that Donald Trump is the kind of anti-establishment firebrand he presents himself to be. If Trump does take such measures during his presidency, then he may be a president worth supporting, or even fighting for. If he pursues few or none of these measures, however, we can be relatively certain he is just another establishment puppet playing his part in the false left/right paradigm leading America toward oblivion. Whatever Trump is, his popularity does indicate a rising tide of discontent within the U.S. The insane circus atmosphere of election 2016 is no coincidence; it is a perfect representation of the overflowing tensions that permeate our culture and are leading to potential earth shattering conflict. Keep in mind that America’s economic situation was already decided back in 2008 and will only become worse as we move into the election season. Whatever tensions we see now will only multiply as financial crisis becomes more apparent to the masses. The idea that a Trump presidency will change much of anything is a rather farfetched one in my view. Trump’s popularity only suggests that people are seeking alternatives. The damage to America has for the most part already been done, and there will be no avoiding the consequences. That said, how we rebuild can still be determined. No political leader including Trump will ever be able to heal the American system or the American psyche, but the efforts of millions of independent and liberty minded Americans can. We have a long and terrible struggle ahead of us, but to look at it from an “optimistic” perspective, at least Americans are becoming sick of the status quo. That is a start. — Brandon Smith
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 107.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
I want to ask is this a seriosu question? All politics is the art of compromise, That trump may think he can circumvent this process to his will is a serious self deception let us think for a moment Trump will build a wall at the cost of Billions of Dollars Trump will deport milions of aliens Trump will bar the entry of aliens on religious grounds Trump will unilaterally alter the relationship with allies Trump will repeal Obamacare replacing it with a one biller system Trump will unilaterally alter trade agreements Trump will bring back jobs Trump will raise trade barriers Trump will preside over the greatest decline in US prosperity in decades The fact is the US is not governed by fiat
Trump will build a wall at the cost of Billions of Dollars Trump will deport milions of aliens Trump will bar the entry of aliens on religious grounds Trump will unilaterally alter the relationship with allies Trump will repeal Obamacare replacing it with a one biller system Trump will unilaterally alter trade agreements Trump will bring back jobs Trump will raise trade barriers Trump will preside over the greatest decline in US prosperity in decades The fact is the US is not governed by fiat Now let's think deeper. It is true that the US is not governed by fiat. It is also true that the executive has a lot of discretionary power. From your list: Trump will build a wall at the cost of Billions of Dollars - legislation already exists under which Trump can START to build the wall, and he can direct the building of various pieces of it right now as Corps of Engineers projects and Border Patrol projects. Once the wall STARTS going up, everything starts to change. It will be popular, and the President can always direct that aspects of the DoD, INS, Border Patrol and Corps of Engineer projects be at the Border. If the President wants to, he can get it moving, and keep it moving. Congress would have to complicated contortions to prevent it, and would find the politics of that formidable. Trump will deport millions of aliens - the President has the FULL power to do this, without Congress. In fact, Congress has no power to STOP him unless it changes the immigration laws (which it is too divided to do). Law enforcement is an Executive function, and the Justice Department, the INS, the Border Patrol, the FBI and the Attorney General all work for the President. He can direct particular, focused enforcement of immigration law. He can order that administrative holds on deportation be stopped and that deportations be undertaken "fast and furious". So yes, the President CAN do this without consultation, by fiat: he's the chief law enforcement officer, and he has the power to choose which laws to emphasize, and to focus on enforcement of some. Trump will. 3. Trump will bar the entry of aliens on religious grounds - He can do it on national security grounds with an executive order, and he will. This might give the Supreme Court the opportunity to overturn Korematsu...but a 4-4 court will leave Trump's decision standing, and with his nominee, it will be a 5-4 court. 4> Trump will unilaterally alter the relationship with allies. Foreign policy is the province of the President. The President cannot order troops to war without Congressional approval, but he CAN withdraw troops from combat, and from continents and bases, without Congressional approval. In fact, Congress has absolutely no power to order any troop movements under any situation. The Commander in Chief has sole command authority over the maneuvers of the US military. Congress can keep paying for bases in a country if it wants to, but the President can order all of the troops home, and Congress has no power, at all, to issue military orders. Fact is, foreign policy is conducted by the President. The Senate's role is to ratify treaties. How the President conducts foreign relations is solely the province of the President, and the President can make Executive Agreements with foreign countries that are not subject to ratification by Congress. The executive power over foreign policy is nearly plenary. Congress attempted to block Reagan from seeking the overthrow of the Sandinistas - an aggressive act - and failed. Reagan could have been impeached over that, perhaps. But Carter decided to hand back the Panama Canal, and no power in America exists that could overturn the President's final decision to NOT renegotiate a treaty. The President ALONE has the power to negotiate treaties. His negotiation authority 5. Trump will repeal Obamacare replacing it with a one biller system. Trump never said that he wanted to do this. He has said that single-payer would have been the best system, but that we missed the window to do that. He will leave Obamacare in place, in the sense of universal insurance, but he will aim at cost reduction, starting with jawboning the states into bringing down the regulatory borders to interstate health insurance sales. Make a competitive market, and prices will come down. 6. Trump will unilaterally alter trade agreements. As President, he controls foreign policy. He cannot change the words of treaties. But he CAN suspend their application, for reasons of national interest. And when it comes to foreign policy, "National Interest" is what the President decides is the national interest. Foreign affairs under the American Constitution are not done by committee: they are directed by the President. 7. Trump will bring back jobs. Certainly by deporting Mexicans, jobs will open for Americans. If he restricts trade from China, through executive action on "dumping" and "currency manipulation" grounds, jobs will open for Americans...and there will be some offset in jobs lost from export trade. Net-net, it's not clear how that will shake out. 8. Trump will raise trade barriers. The President has the authority to do this by Executive Order. 9. Trump will preside over the greatest decline in US prosperity in decades. Perhaps. The world is on the cusp of a meltdown. 10. The fact is the US is not governed by fiat. True, but foreign policy and military movements are.
What in fact you are saying is it is. Undoubtedly there are laws that haven't been enforced and getting the resources to enforce them is where Congress comes in, it must vote the funds, Yes a wall can be built but the funds have to come from somewhere, popular or not, it will require a majority. The president just cannot just divert large parts of the budget for his purposes, it requires appropriations and some of the policies are new policies. What are the logistics of deporting large numbers of people, the logistics of identifying them and rounding them up? You can't just push them over the border into Mexico
Look up, "Secure Fence Act of 2006." The fencing or wall was never built for EXACTLY the reasons you state, paraclete; so along comes a wannbe dictator that sez, "he will build the wall." And because Trump knows Congress won't fund it, he offers his rant that Mexico will. He is so full of BS, it is a laughing matter watching the American People applaud such a ludicrous idea.
The law to build the wall is in place, and portions of it can be built without full funding, as "projects" for local agencies. Example: Military training in fortification and Seabee work and Corps of Engineers work can build portions of the wall. Current maintenance money on the fencline can be spent to "replace damaged fencing" with the wall. Congress allocates money under broad categories. Executives can, and do, find the money at the margins. The construction can start that way, using already appropriated monies cleverly. Congress is then out into the position of having to specifically OUTLAW those uses, which would require affimrative legislation to pass that the border fence cannot even be maintained. Trump can get the wall built piecemeal by aggressively using the margins of the budget. Example: drug mule impoundment - local enforcement gets to keep what is found jointly, if a portion of the money goes to a local effort to build the wall. Congress can't STOP the wall from being build. For that matter, it could be put up by volunteer corps. The feds would simply have to not interfere, and THAT is COMPLETELY within the power of the President. If Trump is determined to get his wall, he will get his wall.
Look It would be a great nation building project, the unemployed could be rounded up and required to spend time working on the wall, however Mexican cartells have been found to be adept at tunnelling so as teh Israeli foind in Sinai you have to do more than build a wall, you have to project the barrier downwards, surely it would ebe simplier to build a canal
Look, it's not REALLY a question of building a wall. The wall is just the great symbolic statement. The Great Wall of China did not STOP invasions - it slowed them down, channelled them and made them more difficult. The Wall is part of a comprehensive package of changes that signal to both sides of the border that things have CHANGED, and that what was treated with indulgence before will now become much more difficult,. much more dangerous, and much more punitive. The Israeli wall did not STOP terrorist attacks, but it VASTLY reduced them. Perfection is not the goal of realistic people. The Wall probably doesn't even have to be completely finished to start having effects, as long as the rest of the package comes with it. The key part of package north of the Border is to treat Americans who hire illegals after a certain date as criminals. Before that date, you can give people amnesty and a pass, but after a certain date, a date to allow transiitions, then the Americans who hire illegals in their businesses should start having crippling penalties. Essentially, the first ones caught should be broken, driven out of business, to send a signal that violation of the immigration laws is a felony, and death sentence to the businesses that are caught doing it. You fine them HEAVILY. And you cease to turn a blind eye. You focus on the industries that use illegals too. You have to frighten Americans who make the calculation right now to risk hiring that the risk is not worth it. And when you catch them, you have to take back ALL of the illegal profot they made- the whole advantage they gained by hiring illegals, and then hit them with triple punitive damages. The purpose is to destroy them, a few, very publicly, so the rest are frightened into stopping it. That will cause business to stop doing it. Shut off the jobs, and you shut off the draw of the illegals. The Wall becomes less necessary. But it's still necessary to start the Wall and make steady progress, because that is what the people want. It is very important that the people who have demanded a Wall for years GET their wall, and those Americans who blocked them and derided them see the wall go up too. It is very important that the Wall people visibly see their victory over the anti-Wall people, and the anti-Wall people also see their defeat. The symbolism is important. And as the other means drive down the illegal numbers and effect self-deportation, the Wall people will have their victory and be able to proclaim it. People who stood for national sovereignty for a long time have had their teeth kicked in. It is very important symbolically and politically that they have the visible symbol of their victory, AND that the totality of the means taken to cut illegal immigration be seen to be successful. That discourages the people who stood against it, and empowers those who put up with the abuse for so many years. We saw it with Reagan. Reaganites took a LOT of arrows, shots and ridiicule. Reagan had to be SHOT for the narrative against him to cool down. But his success ended up silencing most of the critics, and the people who fought it out have the satisfaction of seeing people who were their opponents, cave and start supporting what they used to fight. That's important for maintaining the momentum of a political movement - that the enemy be SEEN to be defeated, and to KNOW they have been defeated, because defeat discourages many people, and they leave the weaker horse behind. Reagan was not popular in 1981. But he sure was in 1985. And that's because people who used to fight, changed sides. People back the stronger horse. Trump said he is going to build a Wall. It is IMPERATIVE, then, that he build that Wall - EVEN IF it doesn't do all that is expected. It will be part of an overall package, nobody will ever be able to say for certain that it was all of the other stuff that turned the illegal tide. The people who have fought this all along, hard, have won, they want that wall, and they must be given their victory, or Trump will be a failed one turn President as the core of his base turns on him as a liar. Trump has no maneuvering room on the Wall. He is the Republican nominee BECAUSE of that promise. If he doesn't build it, he'll be branded as a liar by everybody who supports him, and he will leave the White House after his first term as a disgraced and hated man. The Wall must be built.
an impassioned piece. I thought the NAFTA was an attempt to keep the illegals below the border by giving them employment, a sort of financial wall, the strategy obviously didn't work, but had all those factories that were built in China have been built in Mexico it might have. I think the solution is simplier than building a wall, you have to change the status of illegals so that not only is it a crime for them to employ them, it is a crime for them to be employed in a much more stringent way than non possession of a green card. America doesn't really have a boat problem at the moment but it might if the wall is built. perhaps it would be easier to build the wall further south in Mexico to close off the route from central america, that could even achieve a boost for the war on drugs. The whole range of border enforcement measures
As for myself, I don't personally believe in the Wall. Nor do I think that the answer is immigration restrictions. I think that Mexico is our neighbor, and Canada is our neighbor. I think that the proper answer is that all of this free trade that seeks to get the lowest price, should be aimed at Mexico. We should not have free trade of the sort that offshores jobs to China or Vietnam or anywhere BUT Mexico. Our objective should be to build up Mexico to the same status as the United States and then eventually merge the two countries. They're merging anyway, but the wrong way: rounding down. That's what I think. And then we should be looking further South. I think our long-term goal should be to have one borderless country from Tierra de Fuego to the Arctic Ocean. This will take 1000 years, but we would all be better for it. My countrymen are nowhere near this. As it stands, our capitalists are out of control, and seeking profit for themselves at the expense of the future of the country. So we're getting a cultural merger, by invasion, as opposed to an eventual merger by building up our poorer neighbor. Trump and border control are better than turning the US into Mexico. Best of all would be to turn Mexico into the USA.
A form of one world government, Yes continential government can work, it has been proven in Australia, but you still have the issue of dealing with the poor, the indigenous and a complexity of environmental issues you cannot begin to imagine. A comment, americans have proven particularly poor at understanding the circumstances of others particularly when it comes to differing economic circumstances, this is why national governments or regional governments are important. the problems of the snow bound north are different to the tropical south. One size fits all is bad policy
Australia is a glorified island with problems with immigrant islam. Open the place to more immigrant islam and see how well it works.
Firstly Australia is the size of the continental US. North america is a glorified island too. may I suggest you go first. We don't have a serious problem with immigrant Islam, we have a problem that islam is reaching a critical mass, something that hasn't happened in the US yet. We don't want more islamic immigrants, to have allowed islamic immigration in the first place was a mistake but we learned the hard way that islamics don't integrate, don't assimulate and form enclaves. Yes we have had some terrorists events but in reality no more than america has. we are extremely vigilant and have stoped a number of attempts to conduct terrorist activities and our strict gun laws mean they have less opportunity to acquire automatic weapons and thus any instances have resulted in a lower body count. the last event resulted in the death of one victim and the terrorist shot dead
Secondly, it has a population of 24 Million or about 7.5% of the U.S. population of 320 Million. About 90% of its land mass is termed uninhabitable.
Only by those who don't live there, people live all over this continent as they have done for 50,000 years, but most prefer to live in larger population centres. The reason for this is the availablility of surface water. Your continent has been inhabited by europeans for five hundred years, ours for two hundred, in that time we have built the 16th largest economy in the world, imagine what we would have if we had your population. Never look down on something because it is smaller than you
It cannot support any appreciable population density. It is a desert. That would be starvation on a massive scale. The land will not support such a population. I do not look down on Australia. It is just a fact that it cannot be compared to the U.S. in terms of population, or the inherent ability to support a large population.
That would be starvation on a massive scale. The land will not support such a population. Only certain parts of it are desert, we are not talking about the Sahara. There are three main deserts aside from that there is habitation and the country supports millions of sheep and cattle and a million camels and horses. 2/3 of the land is given over to agriculture. If we were to turn the northern rivers inland it would be as furtile as america. As to starvation, we merely have to turn exports to internal consumption The land is furtile and we grow wheat crops on six inches of rain. Your words show only superficial understanding and a great deal of misinformation, we export large quantities of food to the world, our cattle herd supplies meat to Indonesia a large country, as well as many others. Our cattle herd is about a 1/3 of that in the US This might give you great understanding and dispell the myths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia http://www.australia.gov.au/about- australia/australian-story/austn-farming-and- agriculture
This might give you great understanding and dispel your myths. Australia ~23 million California ~39 million Texas ~27 million Canada ~36 million From the National Archives of Australia Only 6.55 percent of the land is arable. 90% of Australians live within 50 Km of the coast. A quarter of the land has been disignated useless. http://vrroom.naa.gov.au/print/?ID=19050 Learning content partnership This learning content – description and educational value statement – co-created by National Digital Learning Resource Network and National Archives of Australia.
I take no notice of an opinion from the 1920's, their reality was that they were in the middle of a rabbit and prickly pear plague that had devastated agricultural lands, irrigation was largely unknown and modern farming practices non existant. There is a reason why there are large populations on the coast, it is called the great dividing range, this confined early settlement to the coastal fringe as it was a real barrier both to migration and commerce. In your nation the settlement followed the railways, here the railways followed settlement but to say ariable land is confined to 50 km from the coast is rediculous, this is looking at land through european eyes, Some of the best farming land anywhere is found to the west of that range today Australian production of wheat is 26,000,000 tons at the time your information was formulated it was about 2,000,000 tons. Just one of the many statistics showing spetacular growth in commodity production of foodstuffs. How do you think we achieved this in 5% of the continent? what is more, there is spectacular growth in productivity with the workforce falling to 365,000. If australian agricultural land is so useless why do you think the chinese want to buy large tracts of it? When you search the net you should search for up to date opinion not just articles that support your point of view
You are a funny little Aussie, but I linked and quoted a 21st Century study from National Archives of Australia. That would have been be obvious to you if you had actually read it. I can take no notice of your prejudged opinions is conflict with an actual study created by the National Digital Learning Resource Network and National Archives of Australia 2007-2010. As quoted previously: I did and I found such from the National Archives of Australia from 2010. When you decide to blather your personal prejudged opinions, you should at least read what you are responding to.
The original map was produced by a geographer in the 1920s.. What you have here is an opinion piece that seeks to link two factors that are not linked in the 21st century. That information like this exists provides a highly biased view of what this nation is and can achieve. It is no wonder people elsewhere are illinformed regarding this land. You do not need "quality agricultural land" to develop agriculture and land use does not need to be restricted to pastoral persuits just because the place doesn't look like Europe, we are not a land of shepards and cattle herders population no longer needs to be centred on agricultural land, if this were so your populations in the americas could not be sustained any more than ours could here. That we have not developed centres of population inland like your Chicago is a fact that we do not have large inland bodies of water and large waterways facilitating inland commerce, we have to rely on road transport over somewhat difficult terrain west of the divide To help you understand my perspective you are speaking to a person who established a vineyard, farmed sheep and who spent a lot of time understanding what could and could not be done. During my studies I have seen that map in a text on pastures What part of the word archive do you not understand?
What sort of bullshit is that? The study is from 2010. Give it up. You did not read it. Displayed is a "map modelled on the early 20th-century work of Professor Griffith Taylor of the University of Sydney, who argued that cultivation and settlement should not spread into certain tropical and desert regions in Australia." In the history of mankind, about 90% of the land of Australia has remained uninhabited, or extremely scarcely inhabited by aborigines.
please don't post propaganda. Beginning in the eighteenth century, land in Australia was progressively occupied by European settlers who displaced the indigenous inhabitants. It is true that the indigenous inhabitants had a small ecological footprint but they did range over the entire continent so how it can be said that 90% was unoccupied is beyond me, even the deserts had inhabitants. The view you put forward is the terra nullius view promolgated by the british as a justification for taking over the land, and is no longer considered valid in Australia although it was considered valid in the early twentieth century Today, the whole continent is inhabited but the very arid lands are sparcely populated. If one takes the surface area occupied by a single individual and extrapolates it, it is possible to say that the area of the Earth is largely uninhabited but this denies that there are people just about everywhere, except antartica. What I have said to you is that the map was of early twentieth century origin. It is not representative of agricultural use today. It is part of the material contained in an archive and is only of historical interest and is about as relevant as a map of terra Australis incognita. There may be some correlation in the distribution of population in a general sense in as much as the large population centres are coastal, this does not point to an absense of habitation inland
You must be getting really desperate. What I said was: Today, the whole continent is inhabited? By what? From the National Digital Learning Resource Network and National Archives of Australia, 2010 Only 6.55 percent of the land is arable. 90% of Australians live within 50 Km of the coast. A quarter of the land has been disignated useless.
We seem to be back where we started, tell me how much of your country has been designated useless? over 50% of this country is involved in agricultural production, in the US the statistic is 44%. As the countries are of equivalent size we could draw all sorts of inferences from that, most of them wrong. The Sinai was once designated useless. as we both know it is a desert
I would spell it out for you but I seem to have misplaced my English-to-Dumbass dictionary.
ah that explians it you have been using the wrong dictionary
Only in the USA, doesn't affect me but you have a good time
There are no replies to Comment # 107. End Trace Mode for Comment # 107.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWill a Trump presidency really change anything for the better?
#12. To: paraclete (#2)
let us think for a moment
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
(Edited)
US is not governed by fiat.
#14. To: paraclete, Vicomte13, hondo68 (#13)
(Edited)
What in fact you are saying is it is. Undoubtedly there are laws that haven't been enforced and getting the resources to enforce them is where Congress comes in, it must vote the funds, Yes a wall can be built but the funds have to come from somewhere, popular or not, it will require a majority.
#17. To: buckeroo (#14)
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
(Edited)
If Trump is determined to get his wall, he will get his wall.
#21. To: paraclete (#20)
#22. To: Vicomte13 (#21)
The Wall must be built.
#23. To: paraclete (#22)
#25. To: Vicomte13 (#23)
(Edited)
I think our long-term goal should be to have one borderless country from Tierra de Fuego to the Arctic Ocean.
#26. To: paraclete (#25)
Yes continential government can work, it has been proven in Australia
#27. To: rlk (#26)
(Edited)
Australia is a glorified island with problems with immigrant islam. Open the place to more immigrant islam and see how well it works.
#45. To: paraclete, rlk (#27)
Firstly Australia is the size of the continental US.
#46. To: nolu chan (#45)
About 90% of its land mass is termed uninhabitable.
#47. To: paraclete (#46)
Only by those who don't live there, people live all over this continent as they have done for 50,000 years, but most prefer to live in larger population centres.
imagine what we would have if we had your population.
#52. To: nolu chan (#47)
(Edited)
It cannot support any appreciable population density. It is a desert.
#96. To: paraclete (#52)
This might give you great understanding and dispell the myths
Educational value
#97. To: nolu chan (#96)
(Edited)
#98. To: paraclete (#97)
I take no notice of an opinion from the 1920's, their reality was that they were in the middle of a rabbit and prickly pear plague that had devastated agricultural lands, irrigation was largely unknown and modern farming practices non existant.
Educational value
When you search the net you should search for up to date opinion not just articles that support your point of view
#99. To: nolu chan (#98)
(Edited)
shows that the distribution of Australia's population closely followed the distribution of quality agricultural and pastoral land – little has changed in this regard at the beginning of the 21st century.
#100. To: paraclete (#99)
The original map was produced by a geographer in the 1920s.
shows that the distribution of Australia's population closely followed the distribution of quality agricultural and pastoral land – little has changed in this regard at the beginning of the 21st century
#101. To: nolu chan (#100)
(Edited)
In the history of mankind, about 90% of the land of Australia has remained uninhabited, or extremely scarcely inhabited by aborigines.
#102. To: paraclete (#101)
please don't post propaganda. Beginning in the eighteenth century, land in Australia was progressively occupied by European settlers who displaced the indigenous inhabitants. It is true that the indigenous inhabitants had a small ecological footprint but they did range over the entire continent so how it can be said that 90% was unoccupied is beyond me, even the deserts had inhabitants.
In the history of mankind, about 90% of the land of Australia has remained uninhabited, or extremely scarcely inhabited by aborigines.
#103. To: nolu chan (#102)
(Edited)
#104. To: paraclete (#103)
#105. To: nolu chan (#104)
#106. To: paraclete (#105)
#107. To: nolu chan (#106)
Replies to Comment # 107.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]