Upcoming Election

[Paidion]

Here is the flaw in your argument, Dwight:

2. Nations have property

Nations do not have property. Individuals or organizations within nations have property.

[Paidion]

Dwight speaking: If you live in Canada, how is it that you can vote in this election?

The people who live in the United States do not constitute the entire set of people who can vote in U.S. elections. It is the citizens of United States who constitute the entire set of people who can vote in U.S. elections. Some citizens of United States do not live in United States. For example, many Canadians have dual citizenship.

Check out this website for understanding how this can be done:
https://ca.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/voting/

[dwight92070]

Nations "have property" in the sense that our U.S. military is charged with duty of protecting our citizens and their property from outside forces that would wish to invade, murder, and steal. Not only that but there is such as thing as federally owned lands.

But we are going off on a nit-picky type of a rabbit trail here. The point is that Hillary is hypocritical for her condemnation of Trump for wanting to build a wall. Remember, back when George W. was President, the American people wanted a wall built, and Congress passed it, and "W" signed it, BUT, wouldn't you know it, the Democrats defunded it.

Just about anything that is good for America, the Democrats are against it. Makes you wonder how much they really care for this country.

[thrombomodulin]

Here is the flaw in your argument, Dwight:

2. Nations have property

Nations do not have property. Individuals or organizations within nations have property.

If nations indeed do not have property, then by what authority do the rulers of any nation justify the imposition of their will over a certain geographical region for any purpose whatsoever?

[Paidion]

If nations indeed do not have property, then by what authority do the rulers of any nation justify the imposition of their will over a certain geographical region for any purpose whatsoever?

By their own authority as government. The owner of U.S. property has the right to require any authority, even the U.S. President to get off his premises. In Canada, even the police cannot legally force their way into a privately owned dwelling unless they have a warrant. I presume it's the same in U.S.A.

Here is another example:

My wife and I, and some of my children own the 160 acres of land on which my wife and I live. By right of ownership, we have the authority to require trespassers or hunters to get off the land. But notwithstanding, the municipal government has the authority and therefore the right to require us to pay taxes on this land. But the municipality does not own our land.

[MMathis]

People can indeed immigrate toto your house. Right now, if it is vacant anyone can move in. They're called squatters. You can't call the police and have them thrown out. You have to call a lawyer and go through the eviction process. And, no you can't cut the utilities without risk of $2,500 fine. Moving in while you live there has not been tested yet.....but like everything else, wait and see.

[Jepne]

Paidion, If you don't pay your land taxes, the municipality can auction it off.

When I emigrated to Canada (I was born one mile from the Liberty Bell and two miles from the Philadelphia Zoo) my husband had to put up a table in the living room to go through ALL his papers for everything he owned, and had interest in, to prove he could take care of me. No way could I just swim across the river and partake of free health care, food stamps etc. - or EVEN put up a tent! I had to obtain fingerprints and a police check from every town I lived in from the day I was born or came of age.

People on the southern border are violated continually by marauders who break into their houses and bring disorder and mayhem. I relate to Trump on this one! I must agree that it is hypocritical of the Clintons to have a wall protecting their home but won't allow for a wall to protect the homes of those living near the southern border.

I do understand from what I have read that a wall would not suffice but that is beside the point. Something must be done.

[Jepne]

People can indeed immigrate toto your house. Right now, if it is vacant anyone can move in.

If you have locked your house they will be guilty of 'breaking and entering'. No??

[morbo3000]

Just about anything that is good for America, the Democrats are against it. Makes you wonder how much they really care for this country.

It always kills me when someone makes an insult and they forget that person might be in the room.

I am a Democrat.

-They- don't do anything without the authority they have been given. We have a balance of powers, and a representative government. -Those- Democrats were elected fairly by people who were themselves either Democrats, or people who approved of the candidate. You can demonize the head of state, or a candidate. But they are only a figurehead for the will of the people. So complain all you want about Obama. But citizens like myself voted for him. He represents the majority of America. And like it or not, Hillary will be elected also. She won't take the office by a coup. Or inherit the throne. She will be fairly elected by citizens who chose her to represent their will.

The point is that Hillary is hypocritical for her condemnation of Trump for wanting to build a wall.

-I- don't want a wall to be built. So I will vote for the candidate who won't. Does that make me a hypocrite for locking my door at night? No. And it doesn't make her one either.

Remember, back when George W. was President, the American people wanted a wall built, and Congress passed it, and "W" signed it, BUT, wouldn't you know it, the Democrats defunded it.

Here is a summary from https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Bush_signs ... ico_border

Earlier this month, Bush arranged a $1.2 billion budget for the fence, along with cameras, sensors, satellites and other security measures, to create a "21st-century" border —but the fence alone is roughly estimated to cost twice that amount. A U.S. poll this week showed that there are more Americans in favor of an increased number of Border Patrol agents, while less then half of those questioned agreed with the fence.

Less than half. The American people didn't want it. At least not a representative majority. It wasn't defunded. It was too expensive. And if this was a symbol of the people's will, they certainly didn't show it when he left office. He had the lowest approval rating of any President at the end of his term.

[morbo3000]

People on the southern border are violated continually by marauders who break into their houses and bring disorder and mayhem.

Then the police aren't doing their job. Law enforcement is tasked with protecting people from crime regardless of the geography and nationality of the criminal. States adjacent to other countries aren't more susceptible to crime. If that was the case, there would be high crime rates in states that border Canada where people can hop into the US all along the border. People are the same. There are criminals in both countries. And good people in both.

Also, can you back that up with facts? This says the opposite.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/23 ... ime-rates/