Killary Clinton, The Donald, or Jill Stein: The US Election

[bjorb]

[quote author= axj]Again, you are generalizing and making incorrect statements. It's not about "immigrants and Muslims", but about illegal immigrants and radical islamists - there is a big difference.
[/quote]

He is talking about segregation policies for ALL. That includes ALL Muslims. Not shocked enough are you? You don't seem to realize what this means.

And again Radical Islam is only a problem because the West made it possible. Speak about the root of the cause whenever you address the so called ''Muslim problem''


[quote author= axj]It's also inaccurate to say that he portrays illegal immigrants as "enemies".[/quote]

Really? If you portray a group of people falsely as one of the main problems the country has to deal with. You mark them as enemies. Clear and simple.

Here is Trump citing a ''friendly'' poem about immigrants.(2 min)

Donald Trump Reads The Snake Lyric At Campaign Rally Referring To Immigration

http://<iframe width="1280" height=...74" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[quote author= axj]Throwing a tomato during a speech is an attack in itself. You understand that, don't you?[/quote]

Still can't grasp that it isn't okay to encourage your crowd to beat someone up. Apparently not, you don't mention it. But you sure keep mentioning how this tomato was an attack.


[quote author= axj]But I guess you just decided that anything Trump does or says is wrong or bad and just ignore the rest. That is not the way to arrive at an objective view of reality.[/quote]

Trump has fascists solutions to the things he perceives as problems. That's the objective reality here you rather ignore. But feel free to look away from that, since he 'promised' to fix corruption.


[quote author= axj]It's not like he is encouraging people to beat up protesters all the time, like you suggest.[/quote]

No just every once in a while. So who cares, he is perfectly fit to be president.

 

[Joe]

I don't see Trump as some sort of saint and I don't know why you would assume that I do. What I said is that Trump is clearly more authentic than the robot-like Clinton who never says what's truly on her mind.

I agree, but he clearly has no idea about what is involved in 'running the country', domestic and foreign policy. He'll find out soon enough if he is elected. Which brings up the main point here, I think: it doesn't matter anymore who gets (s)elected, the whole rigmarole is a charade. The POTUS is not the "decider in chief". I would have thought Dubya being president would have made that clear to all people. Does anyone really think he 'ran the country' or made any significant decision? If not, then WHO ran the country for his 8 years in office? So again, what's the point in debating who gets to be POTUS? We may as well start discussing the pros and cons of whether or not the Queen of England should abdicate in favor of Charles because "he'd do a much better job of running the country". Everyone knows the English Monarch has no real power in the UK, so why does anyone think the POTUS does in the USA, despite all the evidence to contrary, including a completely unchanged US domestic and foreign policy for the last 50 years?

Sit back and enjoy the show, and don't get too attached to the details.

Added: or vote for Jill Stein. :D

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= Laura]Maybe we should all start promoting a write-in vote for Jill Stein on FB and Twitter?[/quote]

'We are not corrupted by the big money' - Dr. Jill Stein to introduce 3rd power in US elections

http://<iframe width="1280" height=...2g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Interview is only 1 min. But it's the most common sense I heard of all the campaigns already.


If you think about it, Jill Stein has a potential huge audience. Since it's estimated in an article already mentioned that around 91% will not vote. I bet many never heard of Jill Stein before.

Ofcourse she will never be elected, because you have to be selected to get in the position. But she is an agent of truth in many things and that is always helpfull. The more people know her, the better.

 

[bjorb]

It seems the MSM rarely invites her, couldn't find many videos. But it really is refreshing to hear her speak. I really feel stupid for not knowing about her sooner. The following two interviews are much telling I think :


CNN Interview with Green Party Presidential Candidate Jill Stein (6.39 min)

http://<iframe width="1280" height=...XM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Jill Stein Interview With Fox Business News Panel ( 8 min )

http://<iframe width="1280" height=...MQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Nancy2feathers]

It seems the MSM rarely invites her, couldn't find many videos. But it really is refreshing to hear her speak. I really feel stupid for not knowing about her sooner. The following two interviews are much telling I think :


CNN Interview with Green Party Presidential Candidate Jill Stein (6.39 min)

http://<iframe width="1280" height=...XM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Jill Stein Interview With Fox Business News Panel ( 8 min )

http://<iframe width="1280" height=...MQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here's another:

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/07/29/15-things-you-need-to-know-about-jill-stein/21441585/

 

[axj]

I don't see Trump as some sort of saint and I don't know why you would assume that I do. What I said is that Trump is clearly more authentic than the robot-like Clinton who never says what's truly on her mind.

I agree, but he clearly has no idea about what is involved in 'running the country', domestic and foreign policy. He'll find out soon enough if he is elected. Which brings up the main point here, I think: it doesn't matter anymore who gets (s)elected, the whole rigmarole is a charade. The POTUS is not the "decider in chief". I would have thought Dubya being president would have made that clear to all people. Does anyone really think he 'ran the country' or made any significant decision? If not, then WHO ran the country for his 8 years in office? So again, what's the point in debating who gets to be POTUS? We may as well start discussing the pros and cons of whether or not the Queen of England should abdicate in favor of Charles because "he'd do a much better job of running the country". Everyone knows the English Monarch has no real power in the UK, so why does anyone think the POTUS does in the USA, despite all the evidence to contrary, including a completely unchanged US domestic and foreign policy for the last 50 years?

Sit back and enjoy the show, and don't get too attached to the details.

Added: or vote for Jill Stein. :D

Well, at least up until Kennedy it seems that the president did make major decisions himself. I think the question is what would happen if a non-bought politician becomes president. Could he or she really change anything for the better, such as reducing the rampant legalized corruption in US politics? It's too bad that the only realistic alternative to the psychopath is a narcissist.

 

[A Jay]

I don't see Trump as some sort of saint and I don't know why you would assume that I do. What I said is that Trump is clearly more authentic than the robot-like Clinton who never says what's truly on her mind.

I agree, but he clearly has no idea about what is involved in 'running the country', domestic and foreign policy. He'll find out soon enough if he is elected. Which brings up the main point here, I think: it doesn't matter anymore who gets (s)elected, the whole rigmarole is a charade. The POTUS is not the "decider in chief". I would have thought Dubya being president would have made that clear to all people. Does anyone really think he 'ran the country' or made any significant decision? If not, then WHO ran the country for his 8 years in office? So again, what's the point in debating who gets to be POTUS? We may as well start discussing the pros and cons of whether or not the Queen of England should abdicate in favor of Charles because "he'd do a much better job of running the country". Everyone knows the English Monarch has no real power in the UK, so why does anyone think the POTUS does in the USA, despite all the evidence to contrary, including a completely unchanged US domestic and foreign policy for the last 50 years?

Sit back and enjoy the show, and don't get too attached to the details.

Added: or vote for Jill Stein. :D

Well, at least up until Kennedy it seems that the president did make major decisions himself. I think the question is what would happen if a non-bought politician becomes president. Could he or she really change anything for the better, such as reducing the rampant legalized corruption in US politics? It's too bad that the only realistic alternative to the psychopath is a narcissist.

I don't think the point in supporting Jill Stein is the belief or idea that she has or would have any power to change anything as it's evident the POTUS is basically a ceremonial position. I think the point is to do it because it's the right thing to do given the situation.

Who knows - with enough support she might be able to change or force a re-framing of the political discourse in American politics away from non-issues like abortion to real issues like ceasing financial and military support of Israel. Which would definitely be a sight to see!

 

[Cosmos]

[...]

Have you read the book Political Ponerology?

I am familiar with it.[...]

When "familiar" means you have read it, then you might want to read it again very carefully. If you wish, you can then combine it with a thorough read of The Authoritarians, which is highly educational combined with the knowledge contained in PP.

But unfurtunatly that still isn't enough in order to really get what the others here are trying to tell you, because then you still have to put in a lot more effort and dedication to study and take a very close look at history and observe actual reality today.

You might have noticed that quite a number of people here reacted to what you brought up quite dazzled and suprised. As a rule of thump: Others can see what we do, most often, much clearer then we can, as Gurdjieff and modern science has proven over and over again.

So we are "really not as smart and good as we think".

So that fact alone should at least make you stop, reflect and consider the high probability that your views and statement might not correspond with reality as you might think. Strangers to Ourselves should give you a good starting point to understand why that is.

A number of members here put in quite some energy and time to actually help you to discover exactly those things above, since without that knowlege, it is simply impossible to understand our reality, let alone what is really going on in the american "election" today.

So people here actually talk from that foundation of knowlege above (and much more...) when they engage with you, so it would be nice if you could at least try to study that stuff first, in order to really understand what they are trying to get across to you, in your benefit and the others who read this thread. Having said that, it's of course your choice.

In order to understand where we are coming from, when we discuss trump and the american election, one really needs to understand Political Ponerology, take a close look at history and observe actual reality. There is no way around that.

So when we discuss trump and the american election, we actually also look at it and discuss it from a bigger picture coming from the knowledge suggested above.

Armed with that knowledge we can see very clearly that the US is a totally rotten system, thanks to the Psychos who run the country.

As history shows, PP explains in detail, and we can see today in america and the rest of the world: history repeats itself and way to many people are blind to that fact. That's what we can see today.
[/quote]

 

[axj]

You didn't really address anything specific I said. All I see are general claims that I "don't get it" in your opinion or that a few people disagreeing with me certainly means that my perception is somehow off.

It seems that pointing out a few relatively positive things about Trump or even doubting that he is an "overt fascist" is considered unacceptable by some people here. At this point, nobody can say for sure how a Trump presidency will turn out, if he is elected. Even theories based on the knowledge of political ponerology cannot predict the future.

Yes, there is a possibility that he might become sort-of fascist (which I think is unlikely) and there is also the possibility that he may do some good and keep some of the promises regarding non-interventionism, good relations with Russia, reducing corruption in politics, and so on. Yet it seems that some people here do not see this as even a possibility. As I said, having no doubt about something points to an unquestioned belief which limits perception of objective reality. It is good to have a working hypothesis (Trump will become fascist, etc.), but don't treat the hypothesis as the ultimate truth. Stay open and try to see things from different perspectives - that's what objective perception is about.

And since it seems that I have to repeat this in every second post: I see Trump as someone who has a narcissistic personality disorder and do not expect much from his presidency. In all likelyhood he will find "an understanding" with the elites and we will basically have Hope & Change 2.0 where nothing or not much really changes. This even more likely considering that presidents haven't been making major decisions themselves in decades.

On the other hand, Trump raises awareness of critical issues in his speeches, which is very beneficial for the US in the longer run - no matter whether he is elected or not. Why is it that pointing out something like that is seen as a sort of Trump endorsement and the assumption that I have "a lot to learn" about ponerology? Is it so difficult to be open to new data and different perspectives?

 

[Joe]

I don't think the point in supporting Jill Stein is the belief or idea that she has or would have any power to change anything as it's evident the POTUS is basically a ceremonial position. I think the point is to do it because it's the right thing to do given the situation.

Right. If you feel you have to vote at all. It would be a symbolic act.

 

[angelburst29]

The CIA, who fully endorse Killery for President, must be having second thoughts and trying to "insert" their own man?

Former CIA officer and conservative Republican Evan McMullin said in a statement on Monday that he will launch a third party campaign for US President.

Former CIA Officer to Run for US President as Third Party Candidate
http://sputniknews.com/us/20160808/1044058472/former-cia-run-president-united-states.html

The 40-year-old McMullin is the chief policy director of the US House Republican Conference, and former senior adviser on national security issues for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

"America deserves much better than either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton can offer us," McMullin told ABC News. "I humbly offer myself as a leader who can give millions of disaffected Americans a conservative choice for President."

​McMullin is expected to file paperwork on Monday to make his campaign for US president official, according to media reports.

Evan McMullin, a 40-year-old conservative former intelligence operative, will run against Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, with the help of an NGO dedicated to getting him on the ballot in every state due to vote in November.

Never elected, ex-CIA & Goldman Sachs: Meet Evan McMullin, the 'Never Trump' 3rd-party candidate
https://www.rt.com/usa/355127-evan-mcmullin-candidate-presidential/

“In a year where Americans have lost faith in the candidates of both major parties, it’s time for a generation of new leadership to step up. It’s never too late to do the right thing, and America deserves much better than either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton can offer us. I humbly offer myself as a leader who can give millions of disaffected Americans a conservative choice for president,” said a statement from McMullin, disseminated through ABC News.

McMullin has been picked by Better for America (BFA), an organization established two months ago, and headed by John Kingston, a multi-millionaire Republican donor, who previously endorsed Mitt Romney. Better for America has been working to register a candidate with the help of a legal team, so far approaching states with the least stringent conditions, which do not even require a specific nominee.

Its efforts thus far have been rejected in New Mexico, due to a lack of sufficient signatures to recognize it as a party. A petition in Arkansas is still pending.

BFA hopes that McMullin will give its alternative candidate campaign impetus.

McMullin’s most recent high profile post has been as chief policy director of the House Republican Conference, an organization that unites the GOP’s House of Representatives membership, and designs strategies for communicating with the wider party base.

But the Conference said that it no longer employed McMullin and had “zero knowledge” of his White House bid.

Beyond that, there is little public information about the prospective candidate, aside from an impressive list of credentials and a series of messages sent out to his Twitter followers, who numbered less than 140 before the announcement, though the number has since risen to over 15,000.

Born in Utah, McMullin has a bachelor’s in international law and diplomacy from Brigham Young University, and an MBA from Wharton.

He has been a Mormon missionary and a UN volunteer refugee resettlement officer. He had also worked as a CIA counter-terrorism operative in several hotspots, before quitting the agency and becoming a Goldman Sachs investment banker. In the past three years, he has performed several behind-the-scenes roles for the Republican Party.

McMullin is unmarried, and has no children.

In his social media output, he has emphasized his CIA experience, and repeatedly criticized Donald Trump.

Although he is a virtual unknown, BFA says it is employing experienced GOP operatives such as consultant Rick Wilson and pollster Joel Searby to make sure McMullin is a credible candidate. It also says it is banking on the support of prominent elected Republicans, likely those who have refused to endorse Donald Trump for the election, though their names have not yet been revealed.

So far, neither Trump nor Clinton have responded to the arrival of a new challenger.

 

[Ca.]

The CIA, who fully endorse Killery for President, must be having second thoughts and trying to "insert" their own man?

Former CIA officer and conservative Republican Evan McMullin said in a statement on Monday that he will launch a third party campaign for US President.

Former CIA Officer to Run for US President as Third Party Candidate
http://sputniknews.com/us/20160808/1044058472/former-cia-run-president-united-states.html

Looks like smoking mirrors.

How Evan McMullin's Candidacy Could Impact Donald Trump | MSNBC
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHhkb2Xfetw

Anti-Trump Republican Evan McMullin To Launch Presidential Run: Bottom Line | CNBC
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3XcDXZRYyA

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I don't think it's wise to call someone "overtly fascist" and then say "I don't really mean actual fascism by that". That's not really different than the hysterization that the globalist media have been using to try to stop Trump.

That's not what i said. I was pointing out that fascism in a literal term is placed on a certain time and place, i.e after WWI till end of WWII mostly in Europe. Today using that word doesn't imply everything it once did, for example anti-marxism, since it's not anymore topical issue. There is no single agreement how to exactly define term fascism, no doubt because historians don't understand ponerology. Core features of the ideology still apply today; radical nationalism and authoritarianism for example (there shouldn't be no doubt that Trump fits this profile). Just like today we call a group as pirates if they're committing crimes and robbery on sea, but don't excpect them to wear eye-patches and wooden legs. The point was about pathology and ponerization behind all these individual "ism's". Have you read the book Political Ponerology?

I want to make a couple points to help clarify some of the disagreements here, hopefully. First of all, as Seppo points out above, fascism has become a useless word. As Orwell wrote many decades ago: 'The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable".' Fascism was a fairly specific (as far as these things go) political ideology that is embraced by very few parties or nations. It's not very popular anymore. Of course, some features are shared with other political ideologies/systems.

I don't think Orwell was entirely right. When people call someone a "fascist", they're trying to say "pathocrat". They just don't know the word. Trump isn't a fascist (that we know of - he might be, but if so, he understandably keeps that private). He's a would-be pathocrat. I.e., he appears to be a narcissist who would play a role in ponerogenesis. Hillary is also a pathocrat, but she plays a different type of role.

Second, yes, Islamic terrorism is real, and it is a threat (primarily to those living in Middle Eastern and African countries). AND, there is a wider context in which to see that reality, i.e. state sponsorship and false flags. It's not an either/or situation; it's both/and. The West didn't create radical Islam; they nurtured it and weaponized it to play a much bigger role than it would have without their support. Every society and culture has their would-be pathocrats - groups that are not in power but would like to be for the reasons Lobaczewski gives in his book. If their movement/revolution is to succeed, their ideology naturally takes a form that will have some resonance with the people in that culture. Groups like Daesh could not do what they do without "true believers". At the same time, the "inspirational source" of the group will be essential psychopaths who simply use the ideology for their own purposes. In the case of Daesh, this would apply to certain leaders within the group and certain Western backers/handlers.

Third, Trump does have some good points. He brings up issues that resonate with a lot of people. Some of them are real problems that need addressing. The crux of the matter, however, is that his statements are pretty much meaningless. Pathocrats (including groups like Daesh) always use real issues that resonate with the people in order to get support from people who take those professed goals at face value, over and above any signs that they are dealing with a pathological phenomenon that doesn't truly intend to deal with those issues, or that has ulterior motives.

I think it's overly simplistic to just say "Illegal immigration is a problem" or "Illegal immigration is not a problem". Something like that is a problem in some ways and not a problem in other ways. Same with "terrorism". They're complex issues that require complex analyses and approaches. But that would get into a level of discourse and policy that is above the level of election talking points. Trump talks about issues on the level of a demagogue. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong, but it says nothing about his true intentions or his actual ability to do anything about it.

 

[Ca.]

The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/23/donald-trump-is-wicked-as-a-rabbi-i-had-to-protest-his-aipac-speech/
Donald Trump is wicked. As a rabbi, I had to protest his AIPAC speech. March 23 (Short Video)
This Purim, we Jews must not bow down and kneel to a man who inspires hatred
By Shmuel Herzfeld
Shmuel Herzfeld is the rabbi of Washington’s Ohev Sholom (the National Synagogue) and is the founder of the National Capital Jewish Law Center.

As a rabbi of an Orthodox congregation in Washington, I am a strong supporter of Israel and of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which lobbies on its behalf here. For more than a decade, I’ve traveled to Israel at least once a year, and I’ve been to many AIPAC events over my 17 years as a rabbi.

So when Donald Trump addressed the group’s annual policy conference at the Verizon Center on Monday, I was sitting six rows away from the stage. And as Trump began his speech, I rose from my seat. I spread my tallit over my shoulders, raised my hands up high and declared:

“This man is wicked. He inspires racists and bigots. He encourages violence. Do not listen to him.”

With every cell in my body, I felt the obligation to declare his wickedness to the world.

Since 2004, I’ve been a rabbi here in Washington. I try very hard to stay away from commenting on partisan politics. (I don’t remember ever publicly criticizing either George W. Bush or Barack Obama.) I believe that the job of a rabbi is to be a rabbi for all congregants — no matter who they vote for. Our congregation has passionate Republicans and Democrats, and we all get along. This ability to worship together despite strong political differences is essential to a faith community.

[The U.S. should open its doors to imperiled European Jews]

But besides being the spiritual adviser to my congregation, I am also a father of seven children. As a father, I teach my children that when there is wickedness in our midst, we must stand up and recognize it. Sometimes we will just be another voice in the wind, but even so, we have a religious imperative to call out that wickedness and declare that it is wrong.

And the laws and teachings of Judaism make it clear that Trump qualifies as wicked. He has equivocated about whether he would disavow support from David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan. He has called for a ban on all Muslims entering the United States. He has suggested that torture be made legal and that the U.S. military kill the families of terrorism suspects (a war crime in international law as surely as it would be an ethical crime in religious law). Sure, he walked back some of those comments, but there is no question that his campaign is inspiring and nourishing the bigots and racists of the world. Lately, he has openly encouraged violence at his rallies. This combination of providing sustenance to racists and encouraging violence is a deadly one that represents an existential threat to our country. That certainly qualifies as wicked.

Before Trump’s speech, I asked other attendees at the AIPAC conference whether they would walk out to protest. Some small groups did leave, to study Torah elsewhere during his address. But most stayed, and many applauded. People told me that they wanted to hear what he had to say. They wanted to hear whether he would be supportive of Israel.

Whether he supports Israel is irrelevant to me. If a person inspires bigotry and racism, we should not overlook those character traits just because he says something with which we agree. Just the opposite: that he does agree with us on some issues makes his message even more dangerous, as it can make his bigotry and racism more palatable.

[Why a bunch of rabbis went to Baltimore to protest — and pray]

On Wednesday evening, we Jews will read the Book of Esther as part of our celebration of the holiday of Purim. In this story, King Ahasuerus first seduces the people of his kingdom with lavish parties. The people are impressed and grateful for the king’s ostentatious hospitality, so they all rush to support him. At that moment, Ahasuerus elevates the wicked Haman to a position of great power. Haman eventually manufacturers an edict to kill all of the kingdom’s Jews, but even before that, Mordechai, a Jew who lives in the kingdom’s capital, senses Haman’s true nature. All the visitors to the king’s palace bow down to Haman, but Mordechai alone

“refused to bow and refused to kneel” (Esther 3:2).

At that critical moment, Mordechai spoke truth to power.

As I sat in the Verizon Center and watched Trump ascend to speak, I thought of my children, and I drew inspiration from the Purim story. Like Mordechai, we Jews must not bow down and kneel to a man who inspires hatred. We will not overlook his calls for violence.

After AIPAC security escorted me out of the arena, I was approached by members of the media. They asked me why I did what I did. I had no illusions that I might affect Trump’s rise in any way, nor did I expect to convince people of the correctness of my positions. I also knew that many in my congregation would support me and others who call me their rabbi would be deeply upset with me. But at that moment, none of it mattered. I felt a strong religious imperative to act even if it achieved nothing. As the Megillah says about Mordechai, when he heard the news of Haman’s decree:

“He went out into the city and let out a loud and bitter cry” (Esther 4:1).

So I told the media, as I broke down in tears: I did it for my children.

Links within the article
Source:
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/the-aipac-rabbi-walk-out-that-wasnt/

 

[bjorb]

I don't intent to correct you Approaching Infinity, just to add a few things to what you have said. Because I feel certain things need to be addressed, I fear otherwise that we will be having the same discussion over and over about this subject.

[quote author= Approaching Infinity]As Orwell wrote many decades ago: 'The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable".'[/quote]

Fascism is most often associated with segregation policies. It's a good word to use I think because no better word can remind people what happened because of those policies. Claiming it's a meaningless word is a perversing of the lessons that are carried within it's context.


[quote author= Approaching Infinity]they nurtured it and weaponized it to play a much bigger role than it would have without their support.[/quote]

Radical Islam would be ''pingpong club'' without the West. The whole Middle East is shaped as it is because the West held a war against all progressive Arab movements. Wahhabism was their choose to nurture because like always, those who only seek power and monetary gain are the most easily corruptible.

Defeating Radical Islam starts by the western intelligence services. I hope everyone here realizes that by now. It's self-defeating to point out the Radical Islamic threat without naming their most powerful and closest ally.


[quote author= Approaching Infinity]Groups like Daesh could not do what they do without "true believers". At the same time, the "inspirational source" of the group will be essential psychopaths who simply use the ideology for their own purposes. In the case of Daesh, this would apply to certain leaders within the group and certain Western backers/handlers.[/quote]

Those ''true believers'' are psychopaths ''living the dream.'' Everything ISIS has to offer comes natural for psychopaths, and with 6.5% psychopaths across the planet that's a huge market to tap in. Normal people go to Disneyland, they go to places where they can murder indiscriminately. They are rather ruled by their own pathology, not religion.


[quote author= Approaching Infinity]I think it's overly simplistic to just say "Illegal immigration is a problem" or "Illegal immigration is not a problem".[/quote]

It is a problem. But certainly not one of the main problems. The main problems lay within the country, not from external issues. And fanatically blaming external issues while the country can implode at any time is a bit to 'nostalgic' for me.

OSIT.