It is extremely odd to see Daniel suddenly introducing this kind of material and not understanding its nature. I had thought he was presenting himself as an experienced intellectual with scholastic background. Instead, he has repeated various unfortunate racial assumptions and even now refuses to support them with any actual research.

He now brings in an excerpt from a Russian-hacked email, out of a large trove dumped by WikiLeaks and which we have no way of knowing how it’s been edited or changed. We’ve already had various parts of these releases discredited as actually being misquotes of published articles, and we’ve had an official determination that these dumps are the result of Russian hackers trying to affect our election. This apparently does not concern Daniel, who previously was very concerned about his fear of foreigners affecting this country. But let’s assume for argument that the specific email he’s worried about is a genuine article. If it is, it’s actually a document of inclusion, not racism. The email describes a list of potential VP options, any of whom could be a good choice to hold the office. Identifying their background, ethnicity, etc is not racism – it is simply identifying who is being discussed as a candidate for high office. If the list were about ruling OUT a candidate due to their ethnicity, then THAT would be racism. Compare this to Trump and Daniel’s discussion of the reasons he is afraid of Muslim immigrants and how he wishes to keep them out of the US. One discussion is about bringing people in, the other is about keeping people out. One is about looking forward, the other is about the fear of an Other. I believe it’s easy to determine which approach is truly in racist territory.

Regarding the selectively edited videos purveyed by James O’keefe, there’s a reason why most people ignore them. O’Keefe has a long record of fraud and criminality. He is simply not a credible source, particularly since we have no idea what he’s removed from these tapes – such as the part where the participants are apparently asked to discuss how they would handle a hypothetical situation. But even if we look at the tapes per se, are we really meant to believe that someone showing up outside a Trump rally wearing a Planned Parenthood t-shirt is enough to send Trump supporters into a crazed violent attack? And are we meant to believe that the Chicago riot was solely due to a couple of agitators rather than what we already know was a situation of angry Chicago residents who don’t like Trump’s racism confronting a bunch of Trump supporters who do like Trump’s racism?

If this is truly what Daniel believes will be a solid scholastic support for his unfortunate racial assertions, I don’t know how he believes he would convince anyone, let alone the people who read and post at this site.

Do you consider Podesta’s classification of his VP candidates as a form of hate speech? He put them into columns for black hispanics caucasians and a separate column for Bernie Sanders. You guys on the left are very hypocritical. Wikileaks release.

How about sending clandestine agitators to Trump rallies to cause violence and blame it on Trump?
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/17/hidden-camera-video-shows-democrats-sent-agitators-to-trump-rallies/

The media is 99 percent against Trump. Do you want to win the election in this dirty way? I ask.

I have to admit being confused by Daniel’s odd reaction to our attempts in this forum to discuss issues with him in a decent tone. He seems to treat such attempts as a problem and then reacts with what looks like instinctive anger. This is again truly unfortunate.

I again must recommend that he take some time to really think about these issues and not just post debunked and discredited talking points – particularly when he gets into troubling areas like Eugenics and his unhappy theories about population control.

I also must remind Daniel that making such comments about other racial groups and religions is usually thought of as a form of hate speech. I don’t believe he means to practice that idea, but it’s hard to watch someone repeatedly make these comments without basis in reality.

Going back to the figures on fertility (children per mother) many are between 2 and 3 now. Yet, the figure of 5 born per mother in 1998 are in full fighting mood in 2018!!! Be careful with your figures! The numbers are in no way exaggerated.

Hispanic Immigrants spend three time more on welfare than native households and more per capita as well to take the effect of higher fertility out of the stats: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u1J6EEhkyM This is slowing the economy down.

You are quite happy with such immigration but we are not. A friend of mine told me he was a racist and I asked him why? and he said “you know those projects you told me about the gov has no money to fund?” and I said “yes” and he said “well it is because of so many migrants we have to look after”. Take for example in Europe, councils in the UK have to look after babies and broken families that get dumped into the country. We can argue about the figures and there are videos which show the true figures not the figures you liberals like to quote with your twisted love for mass migration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u1J6EEhkyM

Zap, going back to your figures on fertility that was you still see averages of 4 or more in Muslim countries and even where they are a bit lower, the lower birth rates will take 20 years to feel their effect!!! and by then, with Hillary, the United States will be completely changed by migration. Also, they are average figures. Take the UK, the non-white population (Muslims) are growing twice as fast as us whites and the most popular baby name in Britain today is “Mohammed”. Obama appointed Latinos to run the immigration service: https://www.ice.gov/leadership I suppose you think that is a good thing. She wont deport illegal aliens http://www.dallasnews.com/news/news/2016/04/14/mass-deportations-impractical-says-sarah-saldana-nations-top-immigration-cop Of course you are so twisted that you are quite happy about this. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-immigration-director-not-very-smart-to-enforce-the-law/article/2577486 “Born in 1951, Saldaña, the youngest of seven children, is from Corpus Christi, Texas. Her father, Luis, was a plumber and her mother, Inez Garcia Saldaña, was a nurse.”

Soon Sean the Nazi will be working for the doomed “Trump Network”.

Hi Zap. The data is statistical data and African Americans are a mixed race. Indeed many of us are all mixed to a large extent. Every white person in America may have up to 10 percent Ashkenazi Jewish blood in them or other permutations. I was talking statistically for an African man may be the cleverest person alive and vice-versa. One other important concept is that Donald Trump is a NATIONALIST. It irritates the left because they see him as a type of Mussolini but consider that all Americans are the concern of Donald Trump. Just because someone is less bright than another does not mean he will be disadvantaged in the same way that a physically weaker person or a less talented person will be treated any differently. Indeed, African Americans are a very important group and quintessentially American and have sacrificed their lives in wars and in service. This is why Donald Trump wants to improve crime figures in inner cities and protect jobs for African Americans. If we allow open trade with other nations, African Americans will suffer more because we cannot easily compete with Chinese, Japanese and Koreans, more intelligent people than even Europeans. Success is not only owed to raw mental power but to many attributes. If Trump chases bills and we invest in national priority engineering areas as Trump intends to do, he is all about nationalism, then industry will come and we will move away from services which cannot command a much higher wealth. Also if we restrict immigration markedly we will all benefit as jobs are fewer and fewer owing to robotics and automation. Also do not forget longevity and health. We do not need such a high level of immigration which is advocated by white people who feel guilty or who have psychological damage and act against the interests of our American society.

Well, Daniel, if races exist (which is disputable) and there are differences between races, as a black man, I sincerely hope not to be your equal.

People who have studied Eugenics and the development of brain capacity have discovered that climate is responsible for brain circumference and intelligence. In sub saharan africa the thing was to be strong and defend your land. Consequently, even uneducated people will see that Africans are indeed a stronger race. That is a reason the plantation owners and slave runners brought Africans to America because it was a tougher race than the Amerindian for labor. Similarly, brain circumference has to do with climate. Mongolians have very high IQs for example. IQ is not really that connected with education but with raw mental power. In any case an IQ of 60 or so in many sub-saharan countries is very low and cannot be explained by differences in education. Has any good science or mathematics ever come out of sub-saharan africa? Before you moralize about it and call me a supremacist understand what I am saying. I am saying there are differences between races. For example, people with pigmentation in the west require vitamin D tablets to survive, and Welsh miners do not get tuberculosis as easily as Africans because of adaptations during the plague (people with more phlegm in Europe survived the aerial form of the plague). I am just telling you all this simply because you are stubborn and see NO difference. Yes there are differences. Some of these differences must be connected to culture although the connection may be weak.

I do not need to go to any page. You got and look at population pyramids of the world and see the numbers for yourself. Nothing is exaggerated. Also an interesting observation. In the primaries Trump did not initially say he would destroy the deal with Iran but said he would better negotiate it. This is consistent with Youth Bulge Theory as Iran is one of the few Muslim countries which has turned the corner. There is hope that a government there could be trusted. Note also on Israel Palestine conflict that Donald Trump did not say in primaries that Israel is completely right, he said he would wish to negotiate a deal. For this please turn to the population pyramids for Palestine. Palestine is one of those Muslim countries with phenomenal population growth. The evil leaders of Hamas have absolutely no interest in peace because they know they have an interminable supply of fighters. So what is the point of condemning them outright as Hillary and say Cruz proclaimed. Donald’s approach or instinct was correct. The only way is to bribe those leaders of Hamas to try to convince them to reduce the population growth there. Sorry I cannot respond to every single point you bring to me. It is impossible because our views are far apart. You put your points and I will put some of mine.

Well, Daniel is not xenophobic. He is just a plain ill-informed white supremacist. Now, he is going on the beauty of white “northern” women, one more time setting the stanards by which he judges.

Daniel doesn’t know that IQ tests do not measure intelligence, but adaptation to society. When you ask someone who never had electricity to point to the filament in a bulb (and that was a real question of the tests immigrants had to pass in Ellis Island before being allowed to enter the country), you do not determine his intelligence, nor his capacity to adapt to your society.

Daniel, if you want logic and reason in this discussion, try to be reasonable and logical. And informed. For example, pay a visit to this page : http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN

You’ll see that your 6 “sons” by muslim women is largely exaggerated. As for the Internet being the cause of fertility rates decreasing, there is no evidence. In fact, fertility rates have been decreasing way before the Internet, as you’ll see on the same page, and without any relation with walls. Well, before the Internet, it was television that was considered the cause of decrease in fertility rates. But there is a more evident relation with general economic development.

Kevin is not saying that you’re xenophobic yourself. I’m sure you are not, given your admiration for northern european civilization, probably because you identify with it, and that you declare superior with what is an already logically flawed argument : you’re not a neutral observer, you set the standards, and, oh joy, your civilization confirms its superiority by standards of its own setting! Have you ever heard of that story of a very clever scientist, with an IQ going through the roof, dropped in the desert of Namib, rescued by bushmen, who considered him as an incredible idiot for being unable to survive alone in the desert? They had different standards.

apologies for spelling errors: “travelled to Oslo before it got overrun by foreigners”. “beautiful women” “for example”

I find it odd that people with Dutch/German or English surnames take such a defensive position on people from the Muslim faith! I mean what do you know about them? Nothing. You are of more principled human morality than right wing religious zealots! What gives you the right? Every theory is not absolute and there are a small number or exceptions. As a young white man I traveled to Oslo got overrun by foreigners and I clearly remember how there was no ugly woman anywhere. I also traveled to Kiev recently and to Moscow and St Petersburg and the number of beautiful woman is breathtaking. If I were Norwegian I would be pissed off at people allowing the capital to be invaded by uglier people from Bangladesh for example? And this is a universally held idea. For ecample, the Chinese are short of women and so they are going into Ukraine because they recognized that the most beautiful women in the world are walking the streets in poverty. They are financing visas for them to come and marry chinamen. For example, there are other ideas circulatiing which you do not like. Somali people have an IQ around 60. Not all races are the same. This is not to say that people should not be loved or treated without respect, but it would seem from liberal suppressed science that certain climates produced more intelligent people. If you fill a nation with Somalis then there is a good chance you will diminish your IQ. While you people pontificate about the rights and wrongs and morality others take actions which are contrary to your beliefs. By the way, here is a reference to Youth Bulge theory for those of you willing to abandon the religion of the left: The evidence and numbers are there http://www.pseudology.org/Gallup/Heinsohn.pdf

It is truly odd to see Daniel projecting the notion of ridicule and other standard right wing offensive/defensive arguments as somehow being an approach “on the left”. That’s unfortunate, and I would have hoped he would have read to the substance of what we are patiently discussing with him.

Daniel has brought up the still-unsubstantiated notion that “White European Americans have one child on average” and this notion that Muslim families always have more children and “large numbers of sons”. When it is pointed out that this is a fallacy, he simply repeats it and ignores the racist implications of such a statement. One shouldn’t need to point out that Catholic and Mormon families also tend to have larger numbers of children, regardless of their ethnicity. There is a reason he was asked to really think about this, and he appears to not have understood it. There is also a reason he was asked to consider whether his unsubstantiated assumptions would be closer to Trump’s worldview of an America returning to the 1950s to make it “great again”.

Daniel now brings up what sounds like a notion that “the Muslim religion” is “the source of terrorism”. I’m hoping that’s not what he was saying, as it would mean he was condemning an entire religion for the behavior of some extremists trying to commandeer it from everyone else. That’s the mistake made by Glenn Beck and Trump supporters alike. This approach also ignores that there have been many terrorist attacks by people who aren’t Muslim. The Scandinavian terrorist attack from a few years back was an explicitly Christian and anti-Muslim attack. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols made their attack on the Oklahoma City federal building to support their white militia movement. The Bundy attempt at challenging federal authority that Sean Hannity infamously supported was not a Muslim idea. The people who have attacked and killed doctors and staffers at women’s reproductive health centers are not Muslims. I would again strongly urge Daniel to study these issues more carefully before making unfortunate blanket statements like these, as they do not help in anyone’s understanding and they don’t help his argument.

Daniel also ignores that we have plenty of safety checks that our immigration service regularly conduct – something Donald Trump willfully ignores as well when he condemns nearly a whole branch of government workers who are already doing what he insists isn’t happening.

Regarding WikiLeaks and the Russians, Daniel is correct to note that there is some hypocrisy going on here, but he’s gotten the actual roles here backwards. WikiLeaks was never “the friend of the Democrats when Bush invaded Iraq”. WikiLeaks wasn’t even publishing this kind of material when Bush ordered that attack in 2003 – they didn’t start really pushing that stuff until much later in the 2000s. Democrats actually condemned Julian Assange just as loudly as Republicans for what he was doing, particularly in that he was publishing people’s real names and private information without any regard for their safety. It’s true that there have been many on the left who have appreciated Assange’s exposure of government and military malfeasance, but that’s very different from the Democrat Party and Daniel shouldn’t be conflating the two. The Dems are not a left-wing party. They’re much more of a centrist party, with some members a little to the left and some a little to the right. The GOP was once a center-right party but has moved solidly to the right over the past three decades, to the point now that someone like Donald Trump is their nominee, as odd as that has been for the country. I also note that Ronald Reagan’s bellicose behavior toward the USSR in the 1980s was correctly seen as a dangerous approach that could have started a nuclear war. Many people in the USA during the 1980s, including my family, were extremely concerned about his attitude and approach, particularly when Reagan was caught on a live mike joking “I’ve just signed legislation that will outlaw the Soviet Union forever. We start dropping bombs in five minutes.” There’s actually a strong consistency between people being properly concerned about the behavior of the Reagan Administration towards a situation that could nuke the planet, and people being properly concerned about hackers in Russia attempting to influence an election in the USA while Donald Trump cheers them on. That’s not a contradiction – it’s more correct to think of that as common sense.

Daniel’s discussion of the fantasy wall Donald Trump keeps suggesting is truly unfortunate. The notion that it would “protect the coherence of your culture and maintain it Northern European in practice” and the entire strange line that followed it in Daniel’s paragraph is a scary one. I strongly urge Daniel to think about what he just posted there and think about why intelligent people would find that argument to be potentially xenophobic. I’m not saying that Daniel himself is xenophobic – I’m saying that he’s utilizing arguments that would be supported by groups like the KKK and other white supremacy organizations and he may not realize that his discussion here falls right in line with them. It is for that reason that I continue to urge him to spend more time carefully studying these matters and not just make these blanket statements.

David, we will never agree but it is useful for me to gain perspective of how you guys see the world. Thank you.

When Ronnie Raygun was antagonizing the Soviet Union, the USSR was beginning to soften up, to lighten up. There was light at the end of the Cold War. The USSR collapsed. Russia started over. Now it looks like Putin is embracing fascism instead of democracy. And Trump is in bed with the Russians.

What’s not to like??

I explain the Mexico wall. If you succeed to keeping Mexicans out of the United States for the next 10 years you will find that the Latin American women will gradually (owing to Internet) start delaying first born and the number of children per mother – it is already happening in Brazil. So in 10 or 20 years time there will be far less pressure for Latin Americans to move to the USA. With the Trump wall and other tough measures on immigration you will have achieved these things: (a) protect the coherence of your culture and maintain it Northern European in practice – there is no doubt that the Ango-German model made the USA fantastically wealthy as opposed to the Latin American mediterranean corrupt culture which has its origins in the city-state idea and less individual freedom; (b) Americans will continue to enjoy good living space – not fall into the situation we have in England where England has a population density of 2 people per acre. American postmen and such low income people will still be able to live in one acre!

I find it rather intriguing that Democrats fear Russia when in past decades they accused Ronald Reagan and others of calling the Soviets the evil empire. It is also puzzling to me that Wikileaks was the friend of the Democrats when Bush invaded Iraq but now Clinton wants to bomb Wilkileaks. No doubt you will have a rationalization for these contradictions and explain them in your world view but it is never the less puzzling.

Kevin, my intention here is neither for you to try to ridicule me and call me uninformed nor for me to call you uninformed and ridicule you, but constructive dialogue. You accuse me of being anachronistic. I do understand that people on the left and people on social media who are on the left, use such tactics in dialogue to try to ridicule the opponent. So let us consider the barrage of facts you put to me. You misunderstand. The number of children that a mother has is totally unrelated to European origin. If a woman delays first birth to age of 24 she will have 2 or at most 3 children. If she has first born at 14 she will have 10-20 children. Now, I am not sure what is your accusation of 1950s. I am saying to you that in the first world the number of children per mother is statistically low because women delay first born. In the Muslim world this is not so. They have large numbers of children and large numbers of sons. The point you are making that ISIS is weaker or whatever is a misunderstanding of the problem. The practice of the Muslim religion and the Muslim way of life encourages women to have a large number of children. Some countries have reduced their fertility and so have some Latin American nations in recent years such as Brazil! but it remains the point that this is the source of terrorism and that we have had many terrorist attempts and will continue to have them if we import such people into our societies. It has nothing to do with black or white, although in general white Americans have lower fertility levels than African Americans and Mexicans. By restricting immigration into the USA you stop these problems and it is not racist to want that.

Daniel, you are again repeating claims based on a false premise. There is no metric that says that the number of children in America is directly related to whether they are theoretically from Europe. Americans come from all over the world. Your line of thinking assumes that we are still in the 1950s or earlier, when different ethnicities were shamed about marrying each other. You wouldn’t be trying to assert that Americans should go back to a time when people stayed within their own neighborhoods, would you? I realize that this is a large part of the attraction of Trump to many uninformed voters, but you’ve been presenting yourself as a more intelligent person than that.

ISIS is on the run right now, if you’ve been paying attention to international news reports. Their extremist views are not shared even by people in the religion they are trying to commandeer for their own purposes.

Where in the world are you getting this notion that Donald Trump is a safe option for anyone in America? You do realize that Trump has rejected his last national security briefing as relates to Russia, don’t you? Because he believes he knows better since he watches Fox News? Do you seriously think that someone this ill-informed is safe to handle our nuclear codes?

I strongly advise you to take a little more time and think about what you’re recommending here. Those talking points may work on less-informed voters and thinkers, but you’ll need to provide a lot more grounding if you wish to make a case in this forum.

John let us stick to logic and reason rather than to criminality or craziness. It takes 20 intelligence officers to track one Muslim suicide bombing suspect. White European Americans have one child on average, so let us be generous and say that they have one son statistically speaking per mother. Muslim nations have 6 sons per mother. They are engaged in terrorism for this reason (Youth Bulge Theory). Hillary will allow them to come to the west in greater numbers. If ISIS or Al Qaeda get WMD and sufficient numbers of Muslims live among us, the number of brain washed kids and suicide bomber suspects will grow to proportions which the CIA and FBI with their white and African American officers cannot keep track of. ISIS or Al Qaeda or one such group will phone Hillary in the White House and say: “surrender the USA” or “give us one trillion dollars” “or we will nuke NYC”. Hillary will run to the FBI or the CIA and ask them to do something about it and they will say: “we simply cannot keep track of who could perpetrate this crime or where they may be, we simply do not have the number of intelligence officers available”. You are FAR SAFER in voting for Donald J Trump or you might get nuked and lose 2 million of your citizens. An enemy ready to blow himself up is far more powerful than your entire nation if it infiltrates you in sufficient numbers. Trump is the safe choice.

I want to clarify to other poster than Trump is neither a Democrat nor a Republican but a Nationalist so vendettas about what Republicans did to Obama in office are unrelated to my candidate.

Daniel, anyone still planning to vote for the depraved and dangerous Trump at this point in the proceedings has to be regarded as crazy, criminal or too stoopid to tie their own shoelaces. For the next three weeks, all the theory and scholarly arguments over conservatism v liberalism is so not the point, it is laughable.

I really can’t get the thinking behind this continuing RW campaign to pursue Hills over the email nonsense. It was the (Republican) head of the FBI who decided not to proceed, not the Justice Department.

Sure, Bill C pulled a bit of a swifty having that airport meeting with Loretta Lynch, but it was only as insurance in case the FBI decided to proceed and handed the case on to the DOJ. He was giving LL cover so she could legitimately recuse herself from any investigation or decision-making on the case. They were thinking ahead to try and avoid even more fuss and bother if and when the senior career employees at the DOJ decided Hills was not to be prosecuted.

Youth Bulge Theory sounds like a bunch of small brown people making smaller brown people in large numbers with a bad outcome being inevitable. No, people can take action where they see a witch’s brew and change outcomes. The Marshall Plan after WWII. Outlawing fluorocarbons to save the ozone layer. Pointy headed liberal kinds of things.

Daniel, your reasoning here is based on a false premise – that the people emigrating to the United States should be thought of as potential terrorists first, rather than people who wish to live here and become American citizens. You also appear to be unaware that there are multiple safeguards that are followed with respect to people who legally emigrate here from anywhere in the world.

It is true that there has also been a flow of undocumented workers who have regularly toiled in agricultural and lower-end employment in many states, but in the decades that’s been going on, we have not seen the explosive situation you are assuming exists. What we’ve seen instead has been a predilection of right wing pundits and politicians to attack these people for cheap points.

There are evident reasons why an appreciable number of white male voters are choosing to vote for Donald Trump, and it isn’t for any complex analysis of mass populations. It’s for a much simpler reason – they hate Hillary Clinton and they hate the Democrats. They have repeatedly been told to hate them and been given false pretenses under which to do so by public right wing figures like Rush Limbaugh for nearly 25 years. In many of their cases, they are frustrated from the loss of income that happened as a direct result of the massive recession from George W. Bush’s disastrous mishandling of the country’s economy. I would note that some of their situations could have been improved over the past few years, had right wing politicians not chosen to obstruct everything they could. (A strong argument could be made that the GOP obstructionism was partly intended to keep this group of voters angry – in the hopes that they would turn on the Dems and bring more votes to the GOP for the next electoral cycle. There’s really no other excuse for the unfortunate way they have treated people on Unemployment Benefits for extended periods of time.)

Moron Hannity…He will soon be out of a job….

Please consider that my intention here is to converse and not to convince you to vote for Donald Trump for that would be a futile exercise. It is my desire however to try to heal the rift that exists between Democrats and Republicans. Yes I will read the reference that you suggest. I wanted however to introduce you to Youth Bulge Theory so that you better understand why us in the right detest Obama and Hillary. Actually, although Obama has violated Youth Bulge Theory and Trump has instinctively followed its advice without knowing the theory, Obama has inadvertently recognized the problem in hindsight. So I explain the theory in summary and give you an appropriate reference. The theory is taught at the NATO school in Rome to NATO officers. First, here is the reference: http://www.pseudology.org/Gallup/Heinsohn.pdf And the theory is as follows: that it is the statistically large number of sons per mother which have resulted in wars, terrorism, invasion and tragedy. The Vikings invaded Britain, Ireland, France and Russia for this reason. From 1500-1930 the population of Europe grew 400 percent. The first son in a family inherited the farm, the second perhaps joined the clergy but the third fourth and fifth son joined the army. The Spaniards called them “segundones” (second sons) men between the ages of 15-30 that conquered Latin America. Most European countries engaged in Empire. It all ended tragically with WW1 and WW2 when European societies still had 5 sons per mother. After 1930 white Europeans and white Americans and Russians decreased the number of children per mother to 2 or 3 and now we are just 1.3. We are now peace loving peoples. Donald Trump does not have 8 million Hitler Youth waiting to invade Mexico. It is the contrary. The Muslim nations have reproduced 600 percent in the past five decades alone and it is a complete scandal and unprecedented situation of danger. This is the source of the terrorism that you see. It is imperative to stop them emigrating to the USA and Europe because they will export their youth chaos to us. It takes 20 intelligence officers to watch one terrorist suspect. When the number of potential suicide bombers should grow to unprecedented levels and they acquire WMD then it is curtains for our governments because the CIA or FBI wont be able to find them and they can blackmail our government. This is one strong reason to vote for Donald Trump as he is far more tough on borders and immigration than Hillary. Much as you may detest this nationalistic and “exclusive” policy of peoples of certain parts of the world it makes complete sense in our present climate. I give pause for you to reply before I offer more views and reasons that we vote for Donald Trump.