People can have short memories, so I’d like to go ahead and remind folks of a few things. Our trade deficits (with China, Mexico, Japan, Vietnam, and on and on and on) would not be an issue in the presidential race if not for Donald Trump. The abuse of our veterans, especially through the corruption, thievery, and incompetence of the VA, would not be getting talked about.
Not by any of the other candidates and not by most of our news media. Our broken immigration system, and the realities of how adversely illegal immigration is affecting this country and the citizens within it, would not be part of the national discourse. Republicans thought one of Romney’s mistakes was he was to harsh with his “self-deportation” bullshit – not effective and not enough by a long shot – and their solution was to offer us a Jeb Bush or a Marco Rubio.
They would have lost again if they had succeeded in ramming either of those immigration reform (i.e. amnesty) advocates down the throats of the American people, we would have been left without a choice on the issue again, because it’s the same goddamn thing as what the other party has to offer. The only difference being in how amnesty would be granted.
Without Trump, here’s the best case scenario of option one from the Republicans: legal status, not necessarily citizenship, so that they can say “well we’re not granting amnesty”. Over the mid term though, legalization would become amnesty, because the argument would become “well they’re here legally, we should just let them stay” and at that point, you can’t stop it, because at that point they’re right, the people who were here illegally have already, in effect, been forgiven.
In that scenario, those who should have been deported are now allowed to be here, and the completely valid argument against granting them amnesty is removed.
That’s what I call “eventual amnesty”, and that would have been the best possible outcome if either of those jackasses (Bush or Rubio) had been the nominee. It would have been a choice between that, or immediate amnesty via either of the DNC candidates.
Either way, the end result would have been amnesty and there wouldn’t have been any real choice for voters to decide on. And you can bet your ass that if Trump hadn’t jumped into the race, it wouldn’t be getting talked about at all because, despite the narrative that a majority of Americans favor “immigration reform”, the majority of Americans do not favor the kind of reform any of our politicians were offering on either side. They, we, don’t favor amnesty. That’s not me saying that either, that’s various polls that have been conducted over the last few years.
So we would’ve been given a non-choice, preferably with as little actual discourse on the subject as possible, and it would amount to amnesty for people who broke our laws to get here, break our laws in order to stay, break our laws in order to work (fraud, identity theft, etc.), break our laws in order to exist here comfortably (virtually free healthcare, either out of sympathy for their undocumented status or out of the fraud and identity theft I already mentions, access to various welfare programs, which are only really attainable through fraudulent means, and which are not paid into by any of these people). And that’s not even to mention the truly criminal illegals.
The rapists and murderers, the thieves and car jackers, the gangbangers. Mexican nationals aren’t the only ones that I’m talking about either, or Latinos; they just happen to represent the largest chunk of the illegal immigrant population, which numbers in the tens of millions. The most conservatives guesstimates of how many are about 11 million, but they’re undocumented and there’s no will to find out just how many there are, so it could be as much as twice that.
I’m getting off track with this tangent on illegal immigration though.
To get back to what I was saying, that and many other areas wouldn’t even be part of the national discourse in this election. Our crumbling infrastructure is yet another topic you wouldn’t hear a single fucking word on. You’d be hearing about our debt from whoever the Republicans put up against Clinton, about how high it is and how badly we need to do something about it, but you wouldn’t be hearing any policies that would effectively solve the problem or reduce it.
You wouldn’t be hearing about the plethora of causes, from 500 billion dollar trade deficits to nation building and foreign aid, from paying many times our fair share into NATO for years and years to providing able-bodied soldiers to foreign countries for foreign problems, often without any compensation. I’m not even saying you should necessarily want the same things I want, but I am saying this: If your American, you should appreciate the fact that now the deck isn’t entirely stacked. The illegal immigration issues clearly illustrate who to credit for that.
Now, people who want something different than amnesty, shitty trade deals, failed foreign policies, and just as laughable domestic, economic policies… now these people at least have a choice. We can pick more of the same with Clinton, as you’re free to choose, or we can have something different. Donald Trump created a choice for voters that wouldn’t otherwise be there, and win or lose, that’s something even the worst of his critics should give him credit for.
He raised these issues, brought them front and center, and what’s more, he didn’t take the safe route, didn’t adopt the party lines, he just laid out what he sees as our problems, and laid out possible solutions to them. Even if you disagree with them, you should give him his due for giving you something to vote against, something to contrast with your values and policy preferences, which have up ’till Trump been represented in a completely one-sided way, with no true alternatives to opt for. If not for him, there wouldn’t even be a choice, just a question of which face you want to put on policies at least half of the country is dissatisfied with.
Speaking for myself, I’m opting for Donald Trump. In part because he’s shown the ability to make issues like these front and center, brought the country together in national discourse with people talking (or arguing), bring together not just people that agree with each other, but people that disagree. Isn’t that part of the purpose of freedom of speech? To bring together opposing sides?
To let each have their say and their representation? I’d say anything less is un-American. Anyways, my point is that he’s shown he can create and alter the flow and content of national discourse. You shouldn’t have to be able to agree with me or him to be able to appreciate the value of that.