Person123

The situation with the Republican party is actually pretty interesting. On one hand there's Donald Trump, and it's pretty clear the Republican "powers that be" despise him. That said, they're not particularly fond of Cruz either. Cruz has done a lot of silly things that have caused some issues within the party; for example, he's the one who spearheaded that whole "government shutdown" nonsense back in 2013. And then we have Kasich, the man who's fourth place in a 3 way race; it's also worth mentioning that he requires more delegates that are even left in order to secure the 1237 needed to clinch the nomination. The Republican establishment really REALLY wants Trump to be unable to secure the 1237 to claim the nomination, so that they can have their contested convention; but much to their dismay he's the one with the most voter support, and is leading in the delegate count. In order for Cruz to secure the nomination, he requires somewhere around 80% of the remaining delegates, something that seems almost impossible; especially considering the upcoming Republican primaries. Last I checked, Trump was polling 56% in New York. If Trump performs as well as that poll indicates in most or all of the congressional districts in New York, he could win almost every single delegate there; which would be a disaster for Cruz. Anyways, if you want to know how a contested or "brokered" convention works you can read this. however, do know that the delegate numbers they mentioned in the article are a bit older. It's important to note that the RNG committee finalizes the rules ahead of time, which basically means fuck the rules. Now because the Republican Establishment hates Trump, it's very likely he won't get the nomination if there's a contested convention. They could give it to Kasich, or even anyone really if it makes it to second ballot. It's basically a complicated mess. Anyways, if they do that it could very well be the death knell of the Republican party, since doing so essentially says "fuck the voters." They hate Trump, so I don't think they'd give it to him, but it IS possible if he works some sorcery or something. Now they could give it to Cruz, the problem is that the Republican establishment hates him too. Anyways, Cruz is pretty unelectable on his own, since he has limited appeal. Also, from what I understand, a solid 35% of Trump supporters would refuse to consolidate behind Cruz if Trump gets shafted in a brokered convention. So basically the Republican establishment is a tight spot. I'm very interested in seeing how this will all turn out. many won't think so but it's pretty fun to watch, personally. If you wanted my guess, I think Trump will indeed secure the 1237 delegates needed to claim the nomination. If he doesn't, I'm betting that Cruz would get the nomination in a contested convention. In other words Hillary wins.

My claim is that illegal immigrants are a disproportionately large source of crime compared to other demographics, and that the article you linked relied on poor data. As quoted from this PDF, "The poor quality of data used in the PPIC and IPC studies is illustrated by wild and implausible swings. It shows a 28 percent decline in incarcerated immigrants 1990 to 2000 — yet the overall immigrant population grew 59 percent. Newer Census data from 2007 show a 146 percent increase in immigrant incarceration 2000 to 2007 — yet, the overall immigrant population grew only 22 percent." I'll fully admit there's not a whole lot of good data to rely on WRT illegal immigration crime rates. The PDF I shared above gets into the specific reasons why that is. That sort of stuff contributes heavily as to why illegal immigration remains such a contentious issue. Concerning your "keeping poor people out" comment, that's not at all what I'm asserting. There's a lot of economic reasons why illegal immigration's such a big deal, especially when you get into stuff like amnesty. It's also pretty unfair to immigrants who go through the effort of immigrating legally. The primary reason why I bought up illegal immigration in the first place is to provide an example why Trump's policies appeal to some people for legitimate reasons. There's a pretty big reason his support among minorities is particularly high. There's nothing at all wrong with restructuring policy, in fact that's particularly important. Don't forget, illegal immigrants are being taken advantage of; they get paid shit wages and many are forced to live a life of poverty. Putting a stop/slowing down illegal immigration's only one part of it. If the process behind immigrating legally is cleaned up, people won't be forced to do so illegally; and get taken advantage of because of it. I haven't looked into the immigration policies of the other Republican candidates closely (I kinda wrote off their chances of winning ages ago. Fairly sure Clinton will secure the nomination on the Democrat side as well.) but in an interview Trump had with Jake Tapper, he even suggested something that sounds pretty similar to touchback amnesty (The right really hammered him over that one.) Granted, he was very vague about the specifics, which is a pretty big issue. If you're curious you can read more about that here and make your own conclusions.

I'm not entirely sure which table you are speaking of specifically, it's either the one here, or the table from page 27 of the United States Government Accountability Office. About them "Experts," (immigrationpolicy.org) the data that they were relying on is inherently flawed and cannot be trusted. This pdf highlights in excessive detail why the census data they used to justify their assertion is unreliable. I can go into more detail if you like, but I'd mostly just be quoting from the pdf.

Contrary to your assumption I don't really endorse Trump. It's true that I believe there is some merit behind a couple of his policies, illegal immigration specifically; I also assert that the media portrays him a bit unfairly at times. His stance on Global warming for example is almost a complete deal-breaker for me. That said, I don't like it when people completely write off a candidates supporters as "stupid racists" or "liberal cucks." That kind of rhetoric just stifles discussion.

I see your articles and raise you: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/illegal_aliens_murder_at_a_much_higher_rate_than_us_citizens_do.html I followed the methodology the author used therein and came to the same conclusion. The data he used from the Government Accountability office can be found here.

I fail to see how the legitimacy of the "birther" movement is related at all to Trump's alleged "xenophobic rhetoric"; being a natural born citizen is a requirement to be eligible for Presidency in the U.S. In any case, I'm not terribly familiar with the whole birther thing, so I'll just quote Wikipedia. "In April 2011, Trump questioned President Barack Obama's proof of citizenship,[280] alleging that "his grandmother in Kenya said he was born in Kenya, and she was there and witnessed the birth."[281] (Trump's claim derived from a discredited transcript of a telephone interview with Obama's grandmother, produced by a Pennsylvania pastor opposed to Obama's election.)"

I've read all the articles featured in the OP, and have skimmed most of the PDFs. The point I was trying to make was that the fears people have concerning Muslims is not wholly irrational. Like it or not, there are many Muslims who just are not ideologically compatible with the modern world. People can cry "bigot" all they want, but reality remains unchanged. As I've said before, I think a temporary ban on Muslims is the wrong way to go, I don't see how it could be enforced; and it's unfair to the people who are compatible, and American citizens who happen to be Muslim. If you could provide examples of the Xenophobic rhetoric you're speaking of, I'd be happy to attempt and deconstruct them for you.

I'll just leave this right here. http://archive.is/xk9Do Personally I don't think a temporary ban on Muslims entering the US is the right way to go about it, but completely writing off people fears they have about Islam as purely "irrational" is unfair to them. The full quote as he said is thus. "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. Their rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." An argument could be made that he was talking about sending "their" rapists, not that he meant Mexicans are rapists as a whole, and if you listen to him as he's making the speech, from his inflection it's pretty clear (to me; at least) what he meant. Personally I dislike arguing semantics, so watch a Youtube video of him making the quote and come to your own conclusion. That said, is the point he's trying to make valid? If you actually bother to look into it, the data doesn't lie. https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/pages/txCriminalAlienStatistics.htm He disavowed David Duke from the get go lol. The mainstream media loves the whole "Trump is racist" narrative they're pushing. It's pretty hilarious when it blows up in their faces though.

Don't forget, this exists. Dunno if you know about it or not.

Especially with FEXNA on the horizon. I see wonderful things for the future of Ragefest. and by "on the horizon" I mean "within the decade"

BUILD THE WALL 10 FEET HIGHER

Reasons

If I could sleep through all my morning classes back in High School, I could sleep through a party.

A dearth of bosses you say? May as well port another dude from my MAFC submission. Name is Zyxz'Zoth and he's a berserker. Give him Hawkeye as a skill or something that makes it so he cannot miss.

S.W.A.T Kats

It's hard to say, maybe a small burn on my finger a couple months ago.

BANNED

Yah, that's fine.

Hmm, may as well have a cameo. Just make Ciraxis into a village NPC; when visited I say some cryptic shit, give a Knight Crest, then promptly fuck off for the rest of the game. Yes, it is gigantic.

lol only one I have is of the "money man"

Internet

Bah, making that scene missing frame was irritating after Feditor kept spitting it out for having "too many tiles"

HNNNNNNNNNNNNNG

Personally, I have special......animation plans for FEXNA.