When your argument against Trump is a "FEAR UP" campaign without any substantive support or details, you've lost the argument. Trump supporters are not going to

When your argument against Trump is a "FEAR UP" campaign without any substantive support or details, you've lost the argument. Trump supporters are not going to be frightened by your hyperbolic claims, and on the Hillary side you're talking into an echo chamber. It's easy to refute two gross generalizations you made: Enforcing immigration policy, even pausing immigration in certain cases, is not "closing" open society. It's recognizing that there's a dark side to allowing arbitrary numbers of immigrants and refugees bypassing the normal immigration process, and it's taking a step back and figuring out in advance, rationally, what policy we want to enforce, rather than not enforcing any meaningful policy and getting stuck with the results down the road. The free speech threat from regulating big (and maybe not-so-big) media is troublesome, I agree. However, it's accepted, even more on the far left than on the far right, that pretty much all media, advertising, and entertainment is propaganda. What happens if we continue to fail to recognize this propaganda as a threat to the kind of democracy we hopefully want—a democracy built on rational inquiry, rather than one built on the crest of emotion, on propaganda-fueled mass hysteria? You want democracy? This is what Hillary's "democracy" looks (sounds) like: http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/ http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-cl... (direct soundcloud link https://soundcloud.com/user-30899546/hrc-determine-who-win-1 https://soundcloud.com/user-30899546/hrc-determine-who-win-1 )