Trump Changing On Deportations? [Archive] - Debate Policy

View Full Version : Trump Changing On Deportations?

Kathianne

08-21-2016, 04:11 PM

I was reading some sites about this last night, then read some that said, 'No, he's just trying to say that it won't be mean or without empathy,' something like that.' Just started looking around and found this-from a supporter of Trump. Anyone catch the morning shows? I was at work:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/21/so-now-trumps-deportation-force-is-to-be-determined/

So now Trump’s deportation force is “to be determined?”

POSTED AT 11:01 AM ON AUGUST 21, 2016 BY JAZZ SHAW

The rumors started earlier this weekend (http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/in-major-reversal-trump-indicates-to-hispanic-leaders-openne) and I’m pretty sure that even Donald Trump’s most lukewarm supporters were dubious. There were supposedly comments made during a meeting with Hispanic leaders and advocates which could have been interpreted as saying that Trump might be softening on illegal immigration and deportations. But anyone’s comments can be misinterpreted, or perhaps The Donald was just trying to grease the skids a bit during that meeting and got carried away. Last night on Twitter I noticed Allahpundit reminding everyone (https://twitter.com/allahpundit/status/767162304064479232) of the line in the sand.
<twitterwidget class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" id="twitter-widget-0" data-tweet-id="767162304064479232" style="padding: 0px; margin-top: 10px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif; font-size: 12.16px; line-height: 18.24px; position: static; visibility: visible; display: block; transform: rotate(0deg); max-width: 100%; width: 520px; min-width: 220px; margin-left: 40px !important;">

Follow (https://twitter.com/allahpundit)
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/765946767900717057/7lnn4cHU_normal.jpgAllahpundit @allahpundit (https://twitter.com/allahpundit)

I know he’s already endorsed touchback amnesty, but that still involves deportation. He can’t renege on deportation.
5:52 PM - 20 Aug 2016 (https://twitter.com/allahpundit/status/767162304064479232)

</twitterwidget>It’s the one constant in the Trump campaign to date and, frankly, one of the things I found most appealing about him. There’s simply no way he bails out on the immigration question, right? But his new campaign manager showed up for the Sunday shows today and had everyone’s jaws dropping when the question was put directly to her (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/292128-conway-to-be-determined-on-if-trumps-immigration-plans) and she had an answer ready. (The Hill)

Donald Trump’s new campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, on Sunday declined to say whether or not the Republican nominee still backs a deportation force to remove the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.

“To be determined,” Conway said on CNN’s “State of the Union” when asked whether Trump’s immigration plans would include such a force.

Trump has previously called for a deportation force.

Conway attempted to clarify Trump’s stance on immigration, saying the candidate wants to ensure the law is enforced.

“What he supports is to make sure that we enforce the law, that we are respectful of those Americans who are looking for well-paying jobs, and that we are fair and humane for those who live among us in this country,” she said.

C’mon, man. There’s just no way Trump can possibly walk this one back, assuming that his new campaign manager is actually speaking for him. It was only a few months ago when he was telling the daughter of illegal immigrants right to her face that he would be deporting her parents (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/donald-trump-straight-up-tells-republican-voter-yes-i-will-deport-your-relatives/). (Mediaite)

Lauer: What’s your plan for her relatives?

Trump: They’ve been here how many years? We’re going to do something. For people that have been — look, we’re either going to have a country or we’re not going to have a country. But many people are very fine people. and I’m sure these are very, very fine people. They’re going to go, and we’re going to create a path where we can get them into this country legally, okay? But it has to be done legally.

Eckman: You will deport them first, right?

Trump: They’re going to go, and then come back and come back legally. We have wonderful people. It’s too tough to say you’ll never come back again. They’re coming back, but they’re coming back into our country legally. so important. Now, that might not be the perfect answer for you.

That’s the so-called “touchback” plan which is troubling enough. For hard line immigration enforcement advocates, those who come here illegally should actually go to the back of the line behind those who have been following the rules and going through the process, not to the head of the line. If we are to assume for the moment that Conway is actually preaching the current policy position of her boss, I don’t see how Trump can even consider this without finally having a revolt among his own base who got him the nomination in the first place. What about the wall, dude? What about the big, beautiful wall and the trainloads of illegals who would be getting a free ride to the far side of it?

The only other possibility is that Conway was flying by the seat of her pants based on some initial policy meetings with the boss where he said he might consider some changes and she took a flyer on State of the Union. If that’s the case, Trump will be asked about it personally in the very near future and he’ll bat it down with some comment about her being confused on his position because she’d only just come onboard.

The only other alternative is some sort of weak tea answer about how he’s been thinking it over and is considering all of his options. If that’s the case, prepare for a full blown strike among Trump’s base. It’s either that or… well, I’ll leave the final observation on this score to Allahpundit (https://twitter.com/allahpundit/status/767168210688815104) once again.
<twitterwidget class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" id="twitter-widget-1" data-tweet-id="767168210688815104" style="padding: 0px; margin-top: 10px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: georgia, "times new roman", serif; font-size: 12.16px; line-height: 18.24px; position: static; visibility: visible; display: block; transform: rotate(0deg); max-width: 100%; width: 520px; min-width: 220px; margin-left: 40px !important;">

Follow (https://twitter.com/allahpundit)
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/765946767900717057/7lnn4cHU_normal.jpgAllahpundit @allahpundit (https://twitter.com/allahpundit)

Trump flipping on legalization really would be the acid test of whether his cult will indulge him anything
6:15 PM - 20 Aug 2016 (https://twitter.com/allahpundit/status/767168210688815104)

</twitterwidget>

Kathianne

08-21-2016, 04:28 PM

A couple hours later, AllahPundit posts some more on the subject, (he's NOT pro-Trump). Some interesting stuff here.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/21/video-jeff-sessions-hedges-when-asked-if-trump-still-backs-mass-deportation/

Video: Jeff Sessions hedges when asked if Trump still backs mass deportation

POSTED AT 3:31 PM ON AUGUST 21, 2016 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

When I saw BuzzFeed’s report (https://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/in-major-reversal-trump-indicates-to-hispanic-leaders-openne?utm_term=.gjRgRp9jK#.ukVvWNEor) last night of Trump’s meeting with his Hispanic advisory council, I had the same reaction Patterico (http://patterico.com/2016/08/21/the-big-trump-immigration-pivot-that-probably-isnt/) did. They’re overhyping what Trump said. There’s nothing in the piece that suggests he committed to legalization. What he said, in the words of one attendee, was that illegals would be handled in a “humane and efficient manner,” which might just as easily describe a deportation plan as a legalization plan. He’s not letting them stay, he’s merely promising that the buses they’ll be placed on to take them back to Mexico will be yuge, classy, and luxurious. Humane and efficient!

But then I read this Univision (http://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/trump-now-says-he-plans-to-legalize-some-undocumented-immigrants) story about the same meeting. Illegals are gonna win so much under Trump, they’ll be bored with all the winning:

“I really liked that Trump acknowledged that there is a big problem with the 11 million [undocumented] people who are here, and that deporting them is neither possible nor humane,” said Jacob Monty, a Texas immigration lawyer who attended the meeting…

Trump told the group of conservative Hispanic leaders he would announce a plan to grant legal status “that wouldn’t be citizenship but would allow them to be here without fear of deportation.” said Monty…

Other people present at the meeting backed that idea, explaining that the candidate said he did not like the idea of forcing undocumented immigrants to go back to their countries to regularize their immigration status, and that it would make sense to allow them to do so without leaving the United States…

Official details of the Trump plan remain unknown. But those who were present at the meeting said it would include some form of legalizing the status of some undocumented immigrants.

That’s … pretty clear, and pretty ironic insofar as it was none other than Jeb Bush who backed a path to legalization without citizenship in the primaries. When new campaign manager Kellyanne Conway was asked this morning about all of this, whether Trump could really be preparing to renege on his signature policy of mass deportation, she said it’s yet “to be determined.” (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/21/so-now-trumps-deportation-force-is-to-be-determined/) As chance would have it, hardline border hawk and Trump surrogate Jeff Sessions was also scheduled for the Sunday shows today, just in time to field questions on this topic. Watch below as John Dickerson tries to get him to say that Trump would never abandon deportation — and fails. Sessions ends up giving him a Rubio-esque answer about securing the border first; once that’s done, he says, then “we’ll have to think about what’s the right thing to do” about illegals. W-w-w-what? A confused Dickerson follows up by asking Sessions directly whether he’s certain that Trump still intends to deport 11 million illegals, an easy opportunity for Sessions to say “of course!” Sessions’s answer: Well, I’m certain that he didn’t make any firm commitments to the contrary to his Hispanic advisory council, although he’s thinking it through.That’s the Trump position on mass deportation now — he hasn’t made any promises to abandon it yet? If Rubio or Cruz were the nominee and their spokesman farted out an answer like that on amnesty, grassroots righties would be ready to burn the party down.

Trump’s team put out a statement (https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/767165153653694464) last night after the BuzzFeed and Univision stories came out reiterating that he’ll “enforce our immigration laws” and “be fair and humane while putting American workers first.” Notably, like Sessions and Conway, the statement didn’t explicitly rule out legalization. An RNC spokesman was firmer in her comments to Breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/21/exclusive-rnc-official-says-trumps-hispanic-meeting-says-never-said-open-amnesty/), saying, “Some folks [at the meeting] talked about legalization, not citizenship, for the undocumented, Mr. Trump did not say he was in favor of legalization. Some folks may have felt that he was open to it–and he gave zero indication of that.” Breitbart also claims to have four separate campaign sources, some of whom were in the room, who told them that Trump has no plans to change his immigration policies. (Per Univision, Breitbart chairman and new Trump hire Steve Bannon was among the attendees.) Sessions gave a second interview this morning to Fox News (the clip is embedded below) in which he confirmed that Trump “has not changed his view” (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/21/sen_sessions_trump_has_not_changed_his_position_of _deportation_of_illegals.html) on immigration, but again he wouldn’t say definitively what should happen to illegals once the border is secure. If mass deportation is still the plan, why not just admit that?

Trump said in the past that illegals have to be made to leave as a matter of basic national sovereignty (http://video.foxnews.com/v/4606273281001/trump-on-immigration-we-either-have-a-country-or-we-dont/). Now suddenly no less than Jeff Sessions is ready to postpone resolution of this issue until border enforcement has improved. It couldn’t be that, as a member of the Senate who understands Democrats will have a majority next year, he realizes President Trump won’t be getting any money for a wall until he gives Chuck Schumer what he wants on legalization, could it?

I tweeted last night after the Univision story came out that it had to be wrong because Trump simply can’t get away with a reversal on this issue. His base will cut him slack on literally anything else, but mass deportation and “the wall” are the nuclear core of Trumpmania. Together they’re the foundation of his persona as a candidate who’s not only unafraid to be “politically incorrect” on a subject before which establishment Republicans cower but who’s vowed to make possible something that GOP leaders claim is impossible. We can’t build a wall and we can’t deport 11 million people, they say. Oh yeah, counters Trump? Just watch me. Mass deportation is the pillar supporting Trump’s “Green Lantern” image (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/upshot/donald-trump-the-green-lantern-candidate.html). A candidate’s base will sometimes indulge him a minor heresy in the interest of winning — see, e.g., liberals letting Obama pretend he opposed gay marriage in 2008 — but Trump backing off on deportation would be a major heresy, tantamount to Obama deciding that the Iraq war was worth fighting after all. If Trump flips on this, the pillar will crumble and parts of his base will finally crumble with it, or so I assume. About 50 different #NeverTrumpers replied to me on Twitter that I’ve obviously learned nothing about the Trump cult and that his fans will find a way to rationalize even this, despite the fact that it’s a supreme betrayal of what drew them to him in the first place. How many of Jim Jones’s followers ran into the jungle once he decided it was Kool-Aid time, one Twitter pal asked me. Not many, right? Besides, Trump has been pushing a moronic “touchback amnesty” for months; it’d be no great demand of his base at this point to ask them to cut him a break on the “touchback” part, or so the theory goes. (Just think of conventional amnesty as an“internal touchback,” (https://twitter.com/Carrasquillo/status/767170852660051969) I guess.) I think that’s wrong, that formally abandoning deportation would be to ask too much of Trump nation, but we’ll see. We’re about to find out, I suppose, whether even Trumpers have a line that the leader can’t cross.

Assuming, that is, that the BuzzFeed and Univision reports are accurate. Maybe Breitbart’s sources are correct and the legalization buzz is little more than a PR ploy aimed at Latino voters to make them think Trump is softer on amnesty than he really is. BuzzFeed’s sources can murmur excitedly about legalization, Breitbart’s sources can murmur excitedly about deportation, and Trump himself can remain studiously ambiguous so that each audience can believe what it prefers to believe. This is the eternal trouble in making Trump pay politically for a flip-flop: You’re never quite sure which audience is the one that’s really being conned. Is it border hawks or is it the people who think he’s softening on immigration? Is it pro-choicers, per Trump wanting criminal penalties for women who abort (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/30/trump-if-abortion-is-banned-there-has-to-be-some-form-of-punishment-for-women-who-do-it/) after the practice is banned, or is it pro-lifers, per Trump wanting to leave abortion laws alone (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/02/trump-the-laws-on-abortion-are-set-right-now-and-i-think-we-have-to-leave-it-that-way/)? To paraphrase Nancy Pelosi (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU), you’ll have to elect the candidate to find out what his true intentions are. And just to make all of this even more bizarre, he’s flirting with legalizing illegals during the very week that he brought Steve Bannon on to oversee his campaign, which is like hiring the head of the NRA the same week you make a pivot towards gun control. It can’t possibly be that Bannon, who allegedly turned against Ted Cruz (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/292028-how-breitbart-turned-on-ted-cruz) two years ago for making a minor humanitarian gesture at the border, would sit idly by while Trump embraces amnesty, can it? Nor is it obvious what Trump would gain by doing so. If you’re pro-amnesty, a cynical eleventh-hour Trump conversion aimed at pandering to swing voters isn’t going to impress you, but if you’re anti-amnesty, it may well alienate you. He probably loses votes on balance if he does this. Which is why he — probably — won’t.

Exit question: How would legalization square with Trump ranting about jobs being lost to foreign labor? It’s insane.

Videos of Sessions at site

jimnyc

08-21-2016, 05:26 PM

revelarts

08-21-2016, 07:02 PM

Reporter: "Will there be a 'Deportation Force' as he's said during the primaries."
Trump Spokesperson: "to be determined"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yZGv8G7Q4E

Nothing Trump says can be taken seriously. Who knows what he'll do... or won't do.
Was he making promises/lying to get primaries voters on board
or is he lying now to get undecideds on board
or is he making stuff up as he goes along?
There's NOTHING to go on but his Business record and his Words.
But his words - plans - PROMISES morph from day to day.

Would you trust this guy to cook you a meal, let alone be president?
"I will make you the the best ALL Beef Burger EVER! Look if it's not Beef it's not really a hamburger is it? Either we have a real hamburger or we don't! Look, yes humanly killed Beef I PROMISE YOU! And BELIEVE ME it will be the BEST %100 SIRLOIN beef Burger you've ever had! These other guys don't know how to do it."
"Wow great. so is it's going to be all beef really?"
"Well ok, that's too be determined. But it will be GREAT TRUST ME!"

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

08-22-2016, 07:13 AM

fj1200

08-22-2016, 09:33 AM

I don’t see how Trump can even consider this without finally having a revolt among his own base who got him the nomination in the first place.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/21/so-now-trumps-deportation-force-is-to-be-determined/

Guess he was wrong. :confused:

DLT

08-22-2016, 01:00 PM

Gunny

08-22-2016, 01:14 PM

My belief has always been that it would be nice, but unrealistic to think it was possible. I also was always of the belief that they should deport illegals that are caught up for various crimes, and most absolutely for those caught illegally coming across the border. And sure as shit don't grant benefits and privileges.

It's like everything else this election cycle, and Trump and his inability to just STFU. I will say AGAIN, you have to stop the bleeding FIRST. Secure the border. Until THAT is accomplished, everything else is futile.

Then get the useless Feds to cut off funding to these sanctuary cities.

Then if you go after the people hiring these illegals with something more than a paltry fine, we might get somewhere. Their pocketbooks are most important to them or they wouldn't be hiring illegals. They get an American citizen as a front man to hire them to keep their hands clean and he's the fall guy if caught.

FIRST AND FOREMOST is somebody needs to slap some duct tape on Trump's mouth and take away his access to social media. He's huurt himself more than Hitlery has.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

08-22-2016, 01:24 PM

I would take anything that Trump promises during his non-campaign campaign with a huge boulder of salt. After all....he, himself, has admitted that some of his previous promises were "just a suggestion"....and that his outrageous comments were either "a joke or merely sarcasm". Nothing he says can be depended upon, IMO.

Sure, Trump brings to the table his baggage but the Hitlery brings far far more and is a well known quantity that represents corruption, her own massive ego and her special brand of socialism and tyranny.
Two evils, why take the greater?
Why not do everything possible to keep the far, greater evil away from the throne?
Trump has never served as an elected official- she has and proved it was a disaster and corruption to the nth degree.
A choice to be made and if one abstains--than they have by default just given aid to her--not to the lesser evil IMHO. -Tyr

Gunny

08-22-2016, 01:35 PM

Sure, Trump brings to the table his baggage but the Hitlery brings far far more and is a well known quantity that represents corruption, her own massive ego and her special brand of socialism and tyranny.
Two evils, why take the greater?
Why not do everything possible to keep the far, greater evil away from the throne?
Trump has never served as an elected official- she has and proved it was a disaster and corruption to the nth degree.
A choice to be made and if one abstains--than they have by default just given aid to her--not to the lesser evil IMHO. -Tyr

How many porters do you think it would take to carry Hitlery's baggage? From Whitewater to date? I'm thinking new industry.:laugh:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

08-22-2016, 02:10 PM

How many porters do you think it would take to carry Hitlery's baggage? From Whitewater to date? I'm thinking new industry.:laugh:
A few thousand would be the low estimate.
The high estimate would scare the hell out of anybody that wasn't a leftist, anti-american, corruption loving idjit methinks....
My thought is (although well meaning) --far too many are letting their hatred of Trump blind them to the real danger, the already historically proven danger that the skank Hitlery represents.
I've walked a blind path before myself and one only sees how dangerous and scary that journey was/is (if) after they finally see the light on a clear morn..
Last time such happened me , if it were possible to kick my own ass with both feet -I'd have done so! -Tyr

Gunny

08-22-2016, 02:42 PM

A few thousand would be the low estimate.
The high estimate would scare the hell out of anybody that wasn't a leftist, anti-american, corruption loving idjit methinks....
My thought is (although well meaning) --far too many are letting their hatred of Trump blind them to the real danger, the already historically proven danger that the skank Hitlery represents.
I've walked a blind path before myself and one only sees how dangerous and scary that journey was/is (if) after they finally see the light on a clear morn..
Last time such happened me , if it were possible to kick my own ass with both feet -I'd have done so! -Tyr

I agree on the Hitlery thing. I don't like Trump, but I don't hate him. Having served my last 8 years under Billybob and feeling the affects of Him and Hitlery firsthand, no f-ing way.

When I retired I made a list of pro's and con's. Top on the con's list was Clinton. And I was stationed in DC part of that time. She meddled in everything. They cut our force by 25% but increased our OpTempo 25%. I was burnt out. And she was the one running the show.

Now, Supreme Court Justices usually last a good 30 years. That means most of us on this board are screwed until death. Means my kids are screwed. I can't do anything in good conscience but my part in stopping that from happening.

Kathianne

08-23-2016, 09:57 AM

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/242006/

AUGUST 23, 2016
PIVOT: Trump’s immigration plan: Deport ‘bad ones,’ treat ‘the rest’ like Obama does. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-donald-trump-immigration-20160823-story.html)
Donald Trump on Monday detailed how he would deal with the millions of immigrants illegally living in the United States: Enforce laws that are already on the books and continue to do what President Obama is doing, although “perhaps with a lot more energy.”

This strategy marks a sudden change for the Republican nominee, who has presented himself as a politically incorrect outsider who is not afraid to take extreme measures to combat illegal immigration, such as deporting 11 million people or constructing a massive wall along the southern border. For more than a year, Trump insisted that all illegal immigrants “have got to go” and that he would create a “deportation force” to carry out the task.

Trump struck a starkly different tone during an interview with Bill O’Reilly of Fox News that aired on Monday night. Trump said he would separate the country’s undocumented immigrants into two groups: The “bad ones” who would be kicked out of the country as soon as he takes office and “everybody else” who would go through the same process that the Obama Administration is currently using.

“Perhaps?”
<fb:like href="https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/242006/" send="false" layout="button_count" width="120" show_faces="false" action="recommend" font="" class=" fb_iframe_widget" fb-xfbml-state="rendered" fb-iframe-plugin-query="action=recommend&app_id=&container_width=0&href=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Finstapundit%2F242 006%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=false&show_faces=false&width=120" style="display: inline-block; position: relative;"><iframe name="f25956c655ef78" width="120px" height="1000px" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" scrolling="no" title="fb:like Facebook Social Plugin" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?action=recommend&app_id=&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconn ect%2Fxd_arbiter%2Fr%2FuN4_cXtJDGb.js%3Fversion%3D 42%23cb%3Df1c76a269a080fc%26domain%3Dpjmedia.com%2 6origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fpjmedia.com%252Ff217 4b48157e488%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&href=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Finstapundit%2F242 006%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=false&show_faces=false&width=120" class="" style="position: absolute; height: 20px; border-width: initial; border-style: none; visibility: visible; width: 108px;"></iframe></fb:like>
<iframe id="twitter-widget-1" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" class="twitter-share-button twitter-share-button-rendered twitter-tweet-button" title="Twitter Tweet Button" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.d73d0c4cb6af3df0ea22b7c11dbc87d2.en.h tml#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-1&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Finsta pundit%2F242006%2F&size=m&text=PIVOT%3A%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20immigration%20pl an%3A%20Deport%20%E2%80%98bad%20ones%2C%E2%80%99%2 0treat%20%E2%80%98the%20rest%E2%80%99%20like%20Oba ma%20does.%0A%0ADonald%20Trum%E2%80%A6&time=1471964171809&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Finstapundit%2F2420 06%2F" data-url="https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/242006/" style="position: static; visibility: visible; width: 61px; height: 20px;"></iframe>

inShare

revelarts

08-23-2016, 10:41 AM

He's telling it like is ...this time i guess.:rolleyes:

But in this case he's saying sorta what I'VE been thinking all along.
That 1st you deal with criminal illegals, literally drop them out of cargo planes ..with parachutes... over their home countries.
At the boarders furthest away from the U.S. and or place them in prisons until their gov'ts come get them. But they don't get to roam U.S streets EVER.
If we can somehow drone strike other countries and kill innocents without permission dropping a few runaway citizens out of airplanes or disgorging them from ships into their home waters ...with life jackets... surely can be done.
Let other countries complain to the U.N about that.

Those that are here but trying to make a living in peace. I'd try to create some other plan(s). Not Obama's but some plan that took into account the whole situation of each.
There'd have to be some penalties or serious community service, mandatory military service and/or something that poisoned the well and made it FAR LESS sweet to just cross the boarders.

And corporations that are LURING illegals to low paying work would be fined nearly out the of existence. Inspected to death, possibly shut down. And publicly shamed with the bully pulpit.

Kathianne

08-23-2016, 10:46 AM

He's telling it like is ...this time i guess.:rolleyes:

But in this case he's saying sorta what I'VE been thinking all along.
That 1st you deal with criminal illegals, literally drop them out of cargo planes ..with parachutes... over their home countries.
At the boarders furthest away from the U.S. and or place them in prisons until their gov'ts come get them. But they don't get to roam U.S streets EVER.
If we can drone strike other countries without permission drop a few citizens out of airplane or disgorging them from ships surly can be done.
Let other countries complain to the U.N about that.

Those that are here but trying to make a living in peace. I'd try to create some other plan(s). Not Obama's but some plan that took into account the whole situation of each.
There'd have to be some penalties or serious community service, mandatory military service and/or something that poisoned the well and made it FAR LESS sweet to just cross the boarders.

And corporations that are LURING illegals to low paying work would be fined nearly out the of existence. Inspected to death, possibly shut down. And publicly shamed with the bully pulpit.

First, fix the border, I don't think that entails a physical wall.

Second, crack down on the businesses that hire them, can't deal with 11m+ 'individuals.' First time hefty fine, subsequent mandatory jail time.

Third, Whatever punishments/fines, etc., are going to be leveled, there needs to be a dated document involved. From X date forward, no more 'accommodations' will be made. Whatever it's called, it's an amnesty, pure and simple. We've been there and done that, there must be a date from which anyone without that dated paper is subject to deporting.

revelarts

08-23-2016, 10:51 AM

First, fix the border, I don't think that entails a physical wall.

Second, crack down on the businesses that hire them, can't deal with 11m+ 'individuals.' First time hefty fine, subsequent mandatory jail time.

Third, Whatever punishments/fines, etc., are going to be leveled, there needs to be a dated document involved. From X date forward, no more 'accommodations' will be made. Whatever it's called, it's an amnesty, pure and simple. We've been there and done that, there must be a date from which anyone without that dated paper is subject to deporting.

I like that ..

"Second, crack down on the businesses that hire them, can't deal with 11m+ 'individuals.' First time hefty fine, subsequent mandatory jail time. "

giving jail time to corporate players is tough. Corporations are set up to protect people, CEO's, Stock holders , board members from that kind of thing. But the laws can be made to make it happen.
If the president and congress had the will to do it.

Perianne

08-23-2016, 11:06 AM

I like that ..

"Second, crack down on the businesses that hire them, can't deal with 11m+ 'individuals.' First time hefty fine, subsequent mandatory jail time. "

giving jail time to corporate players is tough. Corporations are set up to protect people, CEO's, Stock holders , board members from that kind of thing. But the laws can be made to make it happen.
If the president and congress had the will to do it.

I found this:

What Are the Penalties for Hiring an Illegal Immigrant?

Hiring illegal immigrants can lead to many severe penalties, such as:

Criminal and civil fines
Loss of business licenses

Most fines are broken down to the following:

First offenders can be fined $250-$2,000 per illegal employee.
For a second offense, the fine is $2,000-$5,000 per illegal employee.
Three or more offenses can cost an employer $3000-$10,000 per illegal employee. A pattern of knowingly employing illegal immigrants can mean extra fines and up to six months in jail for an employer.

This does not include “harboring” illegal immigrants, or employing ten or more illegal immigrants in one year. Harboring an illegal immigrant can lead to ten years of prison time.

Additionally, employers should be aware of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Employers can be sued under the act for hiring illegal immigrants, and can face large settlement deals.

The lawfully documented workers of the Zirkle Fruit Company recently settled a class action lawsuit brought under RICO. The suit alleged that their employer knowingly hired undocumented workers, driving down their wages.

So, it seems we already have laws against hiring illegals. Perhaps we simply need to enforce those laws? I have heard Trump say the same thing.

You wanna get rid of illegals? The only chance we have is to vote for Trump, warts and all.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/penalties-for-employers-hiring-illegal-immigrants.html

Kathianne

08-25-2016, 07:41 AM

Coulter not happy with the new softer Trump:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/ann-coulter-mocks-trump-immigration-227392

revelarts

08-25-2016, 09:54 AM

Coulter not happy with the new softer Trump:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/ann-coulter-mocks-trump-immigration-227392

she threatens to abandon Trump If he doesn't "SAY" what she wants to hear again.
OK.
Hmph, so some people still think they can trust he'll do what he says?

fj1200

08-25-2016, 10:22 AM

He tells it like it is.

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. :unsure:

revelarts

08-25-2016, 10:39 AM

He tells it like it is.
It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. :unsure:

:laugh:

"you must spread some rep to other before ..."
:clap:
SaveSave

Kathianne

08-25-2016, 10:57 AM

:laugh:

"you must ad some rep to other before ..."
:clap:
SaveSave

Covered that for you!

DLT

08-25-2016, 04:26 PM

Elessar

08-25-2016, 04:56 PM

How many porters do you think it would take to carry Hitlery's baggage? From Whitewater to date? I'm thinking new industry.:laugh:

I am an experienced fork-lift and end-loader operator! A 5 ton bucket might work!:laugh2:

Kathianne

08-25-2016, 08:14 PM

Ok, first was the 'fair and caring,' on non-deportation and paying back taxes. Now he's looking at 'touchback' amnesty?

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/25/new-trump-amnesty-theres-no-path-legalization-unless-illegals-leave-country-first/

New Trump on amnesty: There’s no path to legalization unless illegals leave the country first

POSTED AT 6:31 PM ON AUGUST 25, 2016 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

All I have right now is a one-sentence quote leaked by CNN to the media, but it’s newsy enough to share it ASAP. For the full context, we’ll have to watch Anderson Cooper’s show tonight.

Anderson Cooper: So if they haven’t committed a crime is there going to be a path to legalization? I’m talking about citizenship.
Donald Trump: No there’s not a path to legalization unless people leave the country if they come back in and then they have to start paying taxes but there is no path to legalization unless they leave the country and come back.

That sounds like touchback amnesty but it’s hard to be sure what Trump’s responding to because Cooper botches the question, conflating legalization with citizenship. It sounds, though, like he’s back to his original position, which is that illegals will have to leave the country before they can be legalized. In other words, mass deportation. Why you’d go to the expense of removing illegals en masse only to let most of them back in has never made sense to me, especially if you’re worried about foreign labor driving down wages for American workers. Did the overnight backlash from Coulter and anti-Trump border hawks convince him to abandon his flirtation with more traditional amnesty? Or does he mean here that illegals might be legalized if they stay but in order to have a chance to become citizens they’ll have to go the extra mile by returning home first? I.e. put an extra burden on them in exchange for the extra benefit eventually of being able to vote?

Or is he simply confused about his own plan and is bouncing back and forth in interviews between touchback amnesty and the more traditional form?
Another question. If he’s talking about touchback amnesty and that was the plan all along, why did Kellyanne Conway say this to Anderson Cooper two nights ago (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1608/23/acd.01.html)?

COOPER: OK, bottom line. We’re going to take a break. But no more deportation force talk and the 11 million it’s not everyone’s got to leave and good ones come back.

CONWAY: Looking at the mechanism, but also not touch back, but looking at the mechanism, and making sure that whatever the policy is that he implements as he has said in the past, it is done humanely and fairly, that we know there are people involved here.

You can watch that exchange at 16:25 below. When he’s finally going to give that immigration speech so we know what the policy is? Stay tuned. Cooper’s show starts at 8 p.m. ET.

Update: His pal Reince Priebus (https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/rnc-chair-deporting-12-million-people-not-practical-legaliza?utm_term=.tjPeBZx03#.etM7w80zB) doesn’t seem to think mass deportation is in the cards:

“We never said a pathway to citizenship, and I tend to believe that legalization or some kind of legalization is the proper route, not necessarily citizenship,” Priebus said on Kilmeade and Friends…

“I’ll wait and see what Donald Trump ultimately decides, I’m not convinced he’s comfortable with the idea of trying to deport 12 million people,” Priebus said. “It’s not a practical place to be and I don’t necessarily think he was there.”

aboutime

08-25-2016, 08:23 PM

For those who haven't noticed. Despite all of the twisting, turning, and hyperbole coming from all of the Trump haters, and those who would rather have Hillary than Trump.

The man, much to your displeasure; is a really smart man. He knows HE CANNOT PLEASE EVERYONE, no matter what he says. And Logical, Realistic, Common Sense people ALSO KNOW....TRUMP just wants OUR PRESENT LAWS TO BE OBEYED ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION.

Problem is. Todays government IGNORES, DISOBEYS, and VIOLATES OUR LAWS, and the CONSTITUTION. So..Trump also knows. Until WE THE PEOPLE demand EVERYONE obeys the laws as written today...NOTHING WILL GET FIXED, SOLVED, OR "UN-RIGGED".

Gotta start somewhere, and SMART people should know. IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE to DEPORT ELEVEN MILLION PEOPLE....just to make some happy, and others mad.

Kathianne

08-25-2016, 08:26 PM

Really smart people now know that Trump is following Cruz, Jeb Bush, and Romney now! Woot! Mr. Establishment!

Kathianne

08-25-2016, 09:06 PM

aboutime

08-25-2016, 09:37 PM

Just got off the phone with a friend from back home, she said that Rush was laughing today, at the reaction of so many Trump supporters shrugging off his non-deportation. He brought up that 'legalization, but not citizenship' was Jeb's idea. He also wondered what the supporters would do when KellyAnne informs him that the vast majority of voters believe a physical wall is unnecessary, is wasteful, and Mexico won't pay for it? If he backs down on a physical wall, those supporting Trump, will you stay loyal?

Gunny will, seems Trump is his weapon. What about those who like him?

Kathianne. You know...as that SMART person you so patronizingly insinuated previously, that it would be so much easier for you to avoid creating all this WHITE NOISE here, and simply admit. You hate Trump, and do not believe anything he has said. Your anger is showing..by the way.

Kathianne

08-25-2016, 09:48 PM

Kathianne. You know...as that SMART person you so patronizingly insinuated previously, that it would be so much easier for you to avoid creating all this WHITE NOISE here, and simply admit. You hate Trump, and do not believe anything he has said. Your anger is showing..by the way.

Not at all, however you are having a bit of projection going on here.

Gunny

08-26-2016, 12:39 AM

Just got off the phone with a friend from back home, she said that Rush was laughing today, at the reaction of so many Trump supporters shrugging off his non-deportation. He brought up that 'legalization, but not citizenship' was Jeb's idea. He also wondered what the supporters would do when KellyAnne informs him that the vast majority of voters believe a physical wall is unnecessary, is wasteful, and Mexico won't pay for it? If he backs down on a physical wall, those supporting Trump, will you stay loyal?

Gunny will, seems Trump is his weapon. What about those who like him?

You seem to be missing the point. Look all over this board about what I've said about Trump. I absolutely hated the CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter. But it was my ride. I could get on board, or learn to swim a long way in full deuce gear. I hated the M-16A1, but was better than throwing rounds by hand.

I'm not voting "for" a person. I'm voting to preserve what's left of the Constitution for my grandchildren. This is about damage control. It takes a team.

And yes, I think and speak in military terms. What the Hell else do you expect a retired Gunny to speak like? The logic of my point remains the same.

Drummond

08-26-2016, 04:53 AM

Kathianne

08-26-2016, 05:19 AM

You seem to be missing the point. Look all over this board about what I've said about Trump. I absolutely hated the CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter. But it was my ride. I could get on board, or learn to swim a long way in full deuce gear. I hated the M-16A1, but was better than throwing rounds by hand.

I'm not voting "for" a person. I'm voting to preserve what's left of the Constitution for my grandchildren. This is about damage control. It takes a team.

And yes, I think and speak in military terms. What the Hell else do you expect a retired Gunny to speak like? The logic of my point remains the same.

So you are going to use your anti-Constitution weapon against an anti-Constitution candidate and speak of preserving the Constitution? I need to ponder this awhile.

I'm voting for the guy who pretty much whatever he says and had done has actually acted for the Constitution. He hasn't used his money or influence on twisting the laws, he's worked within trying to change. He has used the power of petition and speaks good things about that piece of paper.

jimnyc

08-26-2016, 05:44 AM

So you are going to use your anti-Constitution weapon against an anti-Constitution candidate and speak of preserving the Constitution? I need to ponder this awhile.

I'm voting for the guy who pretty much whatever he says and had done has actually acted for the Constitution. He hasn't used his money or influence on twisting the laws, he's worked within trying to change. He has used the power of petition and speaks good things about that piece of paper.

I can truly understand what you're saying, even if you don't believe me as a Trump supporter, but I believe you know "me". At any rate, you take that road, avoid the person you think stands for all the things you dislike... You'll get that piece of mind for voting your conscience... but we both know that one of the big 2 are winning. You don't have an issue with what will inevitably happen to the SC, and last a few generations? Or inevitably what will happen with guns and regulations? Never mind any blame, I'm not trying to assign any, and I do believe everyone has that right to vote their conscience. But are the end results worth at minimum seeing Hillary in office? And at worst, seeing just that happen to the SC and the 2nd?

Kathianne

08-26-2016, 06:08 AM

I can truly understand what you're saying, even if you don't believe me as a Trump supporter, but I believe you know "me". At any rate, you take that road, avoid the person you think stands for all the things you dislike... You'll get that piece of mind for voting your conscience... but we both know that one of the big 2 are winning. You don't have an issue with what will inevitably happen to the SC, and last a few generations? Or inevitably what will happen with guns and regulations? Never mind any blame, I'm not trying to assign any, and I do believe everyone has that right to vote their conscience. But are the end results worth at minimum seeing Hillary in office? And at worst, seeing just that happen to the SC and the 2nd?

Here's the deal and you've known me as long as I've known you, right? I've always advocated that those who are involved in keeping themselves informed have an obligation to act to influence the system. I know not everyone has the means, nor time to actually run for office themselves, but if they can spend time on a messageboard, they could fire off a letter or an editorial or make a phone call. They can speak to friends and family, and yes, those they interact with on a messageboard.

There's probably less than a handful of posters here that I don't think actually understand the underpinnings of our system of government. The rest though, I do not understand how they could have let emotions get in front of the principles they claimed so dear for so long, to advocate for the one candidate that didn't hold those principles. They helped to create the perfect storm of two unacceptable candidates and now blame those that didn't go with him, as the villains in this catastrophe of an election? Indeed, I've been confronted with the SCOTUS argument over and over again, like somehow the 'hope' that Trump would hold onto the piece of paper provided to him by a conservative group, more important than say, 'getting the illegals out of the US.' I'm supposed to go for the 'hope' that he doesn't have the record that Clinton does in politics as a reason to vote for him, hoping that somehow his morals are better than hers? Meanwhile he hasn't spoken out on a position that he's stayed with, now including illegals/deportation/citizenship, while not ever elected? His business record isn't exactly a shining example of ethical behavior, but that was shrugged off as 'business' and being smart.

Sometimes one just has to hold their breath and stay with the principles they've held for like forever. Which actually reminds me of a post I made today that's been pretty much the 'good story' of the day; U of C basically reiterated their position on free speech for students and faculty-it exists. It's important. Making one's point is sometimes uncomfortable for both those giving it and those receiving it, but eventually it clarifies one's own thinking and sometimes actually influences society in a better direction.

Found within that report were the words civility and respect for others, which at first seem redundant. They are not. One can be civil even when one doesn't hold respect for another. I think we all try to do so when mad at someone, whether it's a spouse or a stranger. The respect thing is harder to earn and easier to lose. Sort of like 'trust' it's just one of those things, but related. Even if I could find myself thinking the incivility of Trump was somehow actually related to 'PC madness' I don't find that something I can respect.

jimnyc

08-26-2016, 06:27 AM

Here's the deal and you've known me as long as I've known you, right? I've always advocated that those who are involved in keeping themselves informed have an obligation to act to influence the system. I know not everyone has the means, nor time to actually run for office themselves, but if they can spend time on a messageboard, they could fire off a letter or an editorial or make a phone call. They can speak to friends and family, and yes, those they interact with on a messageboard.

There's probably less than a handful of posters here that I don't think actually understand the underpinnings of our system of government. The rest though, I do not understand how they could have let emotions get in front of the principles they claimed so dear for so long, to advocate for the one candidate that didn't hold those principles. They helped to create the perfect storm of two unacceptable candidates and now blame those that didn't go with him, as the villains in this catastrophe of an election? Indeed, I've been confronted with the SCOTUS argument over and over again, like somehow the 'hope' that Trump would hold onto the piece of paper provided to him by a conservative group, more important than say, 'getting the illegals out of the US.' I'm supposed to go for the 'hope' that he doesn't have the record that Clinton does in politics as a reason to vote for him, hoping that somehow his morals are better than hers? Meanwhile he hasn't spoken out on a position that he's stayed with, now including illegals/deportation/citizenship, while not ever elected? His business record isn't exactly a shining example of ethical behavior, but that was shrugged off as 'business' and being smart.

Sometimes one just has to hold their breath and stay with the principles they've held for like forever. Which actually reminds me of a post I made today that's been pretty much the 'good story' of the day; U of C basically reiterated their position on free speech for students and faculty-it exists. It's important. Making one's point is sometimes uncomfortable for both those giving it and those receiving it, but eventually it clarifies one's own thinking and sometimes actually influences society in a better direction.

Found within that report were the words civility and respect for others, which at first seem redundant. They are not. One can be civil even when one doesn't hold respect for another. I think we all try to do so when mad at someone, whether it's a spouse or a stranger. The respect thing is harder to earn and easier to lose. Sort of like 'trust' it's just one of those things, but related. Even if I could find myself thinking the incivility of Trump was somehow actually related to 'PC madness' I don't find that something I can respect.

I thought he was the best out of the 17. And now, with Hillary being the opposition, no matter who ran against her it became a "must win" in my book. While I understand all of that about principles and emotions and such, none of that will matter should Hillary take that oath. The principles may make someone feel better, but it won't stop Hillary. Emotions may make some feel better, but that won't stop Hillary either. There's really only one thing that will stop her from making such changes, and that's someone who doesn't plan on placing in multiple liberal judges. And someone who doesn't plan on reaching for guns. Any of the 17 would have fit that bill, but there is only one candidate left who has a hope in hell of actually getting elected and doing just that.

I don't think that many, or even any, are going to change their minds at this stage. I just notice that not many at all want to get directly involved with what happens or what they feel about the potential of what could happen to our SC and the 2nd amendment alone. If folks think Trump will take the oath and then turn Democrat, then so be it, nothing left to discuss. Personally, I have zero doubt that his selections will be from the right, and at the very least MUCH better than what Hillary and the Dems will work to place in the high court. I also have no doubt that he and the republicans will work to save any attempts at the 2nd and/or gun regulations, while no doubt the other side will do the opposite. If folks can vote their conscience and have no issue with those repercussions, then there is no convincing left to be done. I'd vote for a dead monkeys ass at this point, as even that thing would help save the SC and the 2nd, whereas we know for a FACT that the other side will do the opposite, as they have stated as much already. Personally, "I" cannot deal with such repercussions or changes to our country. "saving" 4-8 years of someone I don't like - and losing the SC for 20-40 years and potentially losing all kinds of gun rights - even if that was the bare minimum, which I highly doubt, it wouldn't be worth the price of stopping someone I don't like. The trade off of potentially 4-8 years for that stuff is too high of a price for me.

Kathianne

08-26-2016, 06:37 AM

I thought he was the best out of the 17. And now, with Hillary being the opposition, no matter who ran against her it became a "must win" in my book. While I understand all of that about principles and emotions and such, none of that will matter should Hillary take that oath. The principles may make someone feel better, but it won't stop Hillary. Emotions may make some feel better, but that won't stop Hillary either. There's really only one thing that will stop her from making such changes, and that's someone who doesn't plan on placing in multiple liberal judges. And someone who doesn't plan on reaching for guns. Any of the 17 would have fit that bill, but there is only one candidate left who has a hope in hell of actually getting elected and doing just that.

I don't think that many, or even any, are going to change their minds at this stage. I just notice that not many at all want to get directly involved with what happens or what they feel about the potential of what could happen to our SC and the 2nd amendment alone. If folks think Trump will take the oath and then turn Democrat, then so be it, nothing left to discuss. Personally, I have zero doubt that his selections will be from the right, and at the very least MUCH better than what Hillary and the Dems will work to place in the high court. I also have no doubt that he and the republicans will work to save any attempts at the 2nd and/or gun regulations, while no doubt the other side will do the opposite. If folks can vote their conscience and have no issue with those repercussions, then there is no convincing left to be done. I'd vote for a dead monkeys ass at this point, as even that thing would help save the SC and the 2nd, whereas we know for a FACT that the other side will do the opposite, as they have stated as much already. Personally, "I" cannot deal with such repercussions or changes to our country. "saving" 4-8 years of someone I don't like - and losing the SC for 20-40 years and potentially losing all kinds of gun rights - even if that was the bare minimum, which I highly doubt, it wouldn't be worth the price of stopping someone I don't like. The trade off of potentially 4-8 years for that stuff is too high of a price for me.

Well as I've said since the beginning or at least once I calmed down, I'm not going to lose friends over this. Not in RL and not here. We all make our decisions based on what we think most important, at this point those that have informed themselves are most likely sure of their choices. You are, so am I. No surprises there.

If somehow Trump does win, I will certainly hope that you were right all along. That he will be all you hope. If so, I'll be rooting for him and vote for his second term. I'll even try to be good natured when the catcalls come. ;)

If Hillary wins, I will do all I can to add to the voices trying to block her, just as I have with Obama. Not always successfully, obviously, but I've kept up with the Republicans that did do what they could to mitigate and block his moves when possible. There are reasons he went all 'executive action.'

We expect Hillary to be bad, even worse than we fear. Well warranted. OTOH, if Trump wins and is as bad as I fear, better figure out whom in Congress one is going to work with to block the worst of it.

revelarts

08-26-2016, 07:47 AM

http://i.imgur.com/uuoKEo6.jpg

jimnyc

08-26-2016, 08:28 AM

Well as I've said since the beginning or at least once I calmed down, I'm not going to lose friends over this. Not in RL and not here. We all make our decisions based on what we think most important, at this point those that have informed themselves are most likely sure of their choices. You are, so am I. No surprises there.

If somehow Trump does win, I will certainly hope that you were right all along. That he will be all you hope. If so, I'll be rooting for him and vote for his second term. I'll even try to be good natured when the catcalls come. ;)

If Hillary wins, I will do all I can to add to the voices trying to block her, just as I have with Obama. Not always successfully, obviously, but I've kept up with the Republicans that did do what they could to mitigate and block his moves when possible. There are reasons he went all 'executive action.'

We expect Hillary to be bad, even worse than we fear. Well warranted. OTOH, if Trump wins and is as bad as I fear, better figure out whom in Congress one is going to work with to block the worst of it.

Just curious, I've asked quite a few times now about repercussions, and how you feel if the SC should possibly lean left as a result, for a few generations... and about the potential of changes to the 2nd and/or further regulations. I never get any answers about that (and you're not the only one). And it's not about responsibility or blame or anything like that, but rather the reality of what will be should Hillary take the white house. Regardless of who votes for who, you're comfortable with those 2 changes alone should it come to that, not even to get into any other potential changes from her? She's already stated her intent, so there is no mystery there.

Kathianne

08-26-2016, 08:37 AM

Just curious, I've asked quite a few times now about repercussions, and how you feel if the SC should possibly lean left as a result, for a few generations... and about the potential of changes to the 2nd and/or further regulations. I never get any answers about that (and you're not the only one). And it's not about responsibility or blame or anything like that, but rather the reality of what will be should Hillary take the white house. Regardless of who votes for who, you're comfortable with those 2 changes alone should it come to that, not even to get into any other potential changes from her? She's already stated her intent, so there is no mystery there.

I guess the best way I can answer this, without bringing up responsibility/blame/etc., is that folks needed to think of the repercussions of voting for a candidate that so many more who agreed with the issues, but could not vote for/support the candidate for many/some/all of the reasons I've brought up numerous times. He now, for me and a significant number of others is unacceptable to vote for in November-as he was in the primary.

I understand he won, outright. I've never been in favor of taking it away from him under any circumstances. The fairness of his win was not lost, it's one of the few remaining strengths of the system. That he did so with so many in the contest was not his fault, indeed he may have been very canny in choosing this election cycle and it was his win.

The bottom line is I will vote as I always have, for the person I think most closely aligns with my ideas and how to address the problems our country faces. That there will be problems down the line with whomever is elected is unavoidable. I have one vote and will exercise it for the person I think is the best choice for our system of government.

jimnyc

08-26-2016, 09:48 AM

I guess the best way I can answer this, without bringing up responsibility/blame/etc., is that folks needed to think of the repercussions of voting for a candidate that so many more who agreed with the issues, but could not vote for/support the candidate for many/some/all of the reasons I've brought up numerous times. He now, for me and a significant number of others is unacceptable to vote for in November-as he was in the primary.

I understand he won, outright. I've never been in favor of taking it away from him under any circumstances. The fairness of his win was not lost, it's one of the few remaining strengths of the system. That he did so with so many in the contest was not his fault, indeed he may have been very canny in choosing this election cycle and it was his win.

The bottom line is I will vote as I always have, for the person I think most closely aligns with my ideas and how to address the problems our country faces. That there will be problems down the line with whomever is elected is unavoidable. I have one vote and will exercise it for the person I think is the best choice for our system of government.

So yes, you can deal with such changes should Hillary win and make changes to the 2nd and the SC. It's avoidable, but you prefer to stay with your conscience and not vote for Trump as originally stated.

I cannot. The issues to me are too important. I'd vote against my own family if that's what it took to keep the SC from crashing, and to preserve gun rights. In 4 to 8 years from now, if someone runs that everyone loves, it might be too late to fix some changes.

NightTrain

08-26-2016, 09:52 AM

Trump's policy is changing? From yesterday :

8:00: Speaking to Anderson Cooper, Donald Trump says “we’re going to build a great wall” that is going to be paid for by Mexico. He says drugs will stop flowing into our nation and poisoning our youth. “People will not come into our country illegally,” he tells Cooper, citing his endorsement from the Border Patrol Agents. He says no sanctuary cities.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/25/hillarytriestosmeartrumpsupporters/

Sounds pretty much the same to me.

Abbey Marie

08-26-2016, 10:32 AM

So yes, you can deal with such changes should Hillary win and make changes to the 2nd and the SC. It's avoidable, but you prefer to stay with your conscience and not vote for Trump as originally stated.

I cannot. The issues to me are too important. I'd vote against my own family if that's what it took to keep the SC from crashing, and to preserve gun rights. In 4 to 8 years from now, if someone runs that everyone loves, it might be too late to fix some changes.

For a social conservative like me, the thought of a Hillary court is simply intolerable.
I don't want to speak for her, but I don't think that Kath gives those issues a lot of import. I do think she is a strong believer in gun rights and private property rights, though, so your point is well taken.

jimnyc

08-26-2016, 12:05 PM

Trump's policy is changing? From yesterday :

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/25/hillarytriestosmeartrumpsupporters/

Sounds pretty much the same to me.

Yup, and I agree. Just something else to bash while ignoring the majority of things from others.

His stance is pretty much the same. He isn't talking about tossing out 11 million people overnight, which I can't recall many believing that we could do so anyway. Would I LIKE to see that happen? Damn skippy I would!! But we need an overhaul, the wall, enforcement should anyone be caught being wetbacks... if someone is arrested, and illegal, toss them out. Worse penalties for companies breaking the law. There are SO many things that can and need to be done. And funnier when they try to make it out to be the same as Jeb and such. I believe Cruz was the only other candidate speaking of building any type of wall. In fact, he was dead set against it, and said it couldn't be done.

And while jumping on Trump because his harsh stance on illegal immigration is a little undecided, I don't think I've seen anything about discussion and Hillary and her stance on this same subject. She's against deportations at all. She's STUPID and thought not long ago that the net immigration from Mexico was at 0. :rolleyes: Any type of fences are absurd. No problem with helping illegals with in state tuition. No problem with helping illegals and getting healthcare. Supported Dream act and path to citizenship. Drivers licenses for illegals. Wants to fund sanctuary cities. I had already posted about her desire to increase syrian refugees coming in, by like 500%!! Voted NO on making English our national language. Voted YES on illegals getting social security... Now THIS sounds more like someone we need to worry about when it comes to ILLEGALS. I believe the person that will be in office should Trump lose, THAT is the person that we should be scared about. Some over the course of time want to make Trump and Clinton seem the same. Not even remotely close to the truth. Sure, we can have some subjects where folks can swear he's a liberal. Just as there are folks on the left who swear Hillary is a rightie because of a few stances. But all in all? Not even close. I don't care HOW much someone hates either one, he's simply not a liberal and she is simply not a rightie. You WILL see far left changes if she gets in office, just as you will see right/far right changes should he get in office.

jimnyc

08-26-2016, 12:09 PM

For a social conservative like me, the thought of a Hillary court is simply intolerable.
I don't want to speak for her, but I don't think that Kath gives those issues a lot of import. I do think she is a strong believer in gun rights and private property rights, though, so your point is well taken.

I don't want it to seem like I'm pointing solely at her, as these are the few things that I have been asking quite a few folks, about the SC and the 2nd. The majority of these folks want to discuss endlessly about how bad Trump is, or how bad the BOTH of them are, but not real into discussing what should happen, what if/any fallout there may be. 10 years from now there will be nothing left but any changes or fallout from the presidency. And thinking that way, I am 30000000000000000000% convinced that another Clinton presidency would be much more harmful than 4-8 of Trump. "I" like him, but even if I take the stance of "a republican/rightie" that is disgusted by Trump, I still see SO much more harm coming from her. Even if I assume everything folks speak of about what they don't like about him - it's still nothing in comparison to what this woman wants to do, can do and we all know WILL.

revelarts

08-26-2016, 12:11 PM

I'll make the issue more pointed than Kath,
If the republicans in the primaries had voted for the candidates that best represented conservative values socially, fiscally or constitution wise Trump would NOT be the republican candidate.
period.
The things that seemed drive Trump voters were fe...concerns about Illegals, Muslims, "crime", PC wars and pent up right wing frustrations.
NOT conservative values.
NOT even 'we have to beat Hillary'.

So i'm not moved by all the talk now of how bad Hilary is. We've known she was bad for years and we've known she VERY beatable.
But now Republicans are stuck with a stink bomb that suddenly claims he's "conservative" while he's SUPPORTTED the party and the very candidate he's now running AGAINST.

sorry no one should be guilted into voting for the hot mess that is TRUMP to "save the children". sheesh.
Trump is suddenly pro-life and suddenly pro gun so we should trust him over all the other Republicans that had a SOLID record on most all the conservative issues. (except Jeb and Christy) Trump is better because 'HE'll BUILD A WALL!!! WHOOOO HOOOOO! YEAH!!! and BAN Muslims!! HALLELUYAHH!!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!"
:flyflag:
"What? oh yeah ...the constitution does says he can do that... it really does... well it doesn't say he can't!! DO YOU WANT TO DIE!!!??. Or WANT HILLARY TO WIN!!" :rolleyes:.

Sorry, I'm not voting for either of those 2 bottom of the barrel candidates.
"for the children"!! I'm going to vote constitution party if i'm the only one.
When my kid ask me did you vote for Trump I'll say. NO! Hillary? NO!. why?
because they are both terrible for the country and the country deserves better.
why did so many others vote for them? Because some on the right prefer a wall and fighting all Muslims to positive conservative values.
And those on the left just don't know what they are doing.
Because they all R and D are AFRAID to step out of line and vote for the best. They'd rather drink poison and hope they live, than take a bullet and try to survive. And they won't even vote for people in congress to fight them either. they'll vote in the same partisan HACKS hoping things will change. Or they'll talk about a truly long shot no win FIGHTING revolution before they DARE to vote for a "long shot" outside of party lines in a bloodless revolution.

Gunny

08-26-2016, 12:34 PM

So yes, you can deal with such changes should Hillary win and make changes to the 2nd and the SC. It's avoidable, but you prefer to stay with your conscience and not vote for Trump as originally stated.

I cannot. The issues to me are too important. I'd vote against my own family if that's what it took to keep the SC from crashing, and to preserve gun rights. In 4 to 8 years from now, if someone runs that everyone loves, it might be too late to fix some changes.

I DO vote against most of my family. Bunch of goofballs. I refuse to even talk politics with them.

jimnyc

08-26-2016, 12:40 PM

I'll make the issue more pointed than Kath,
If the republicans in the primaries had voted for the candidates that best represented conservative values socially, fiscally or constitution wise Trump would NOT be the republican candidate.
period.

And those folks likely chose and voted for the person they think is the best to lead our country for the next 4-8 years. Sure, you can then narrow it down and argue about each and every stance out there, but the point is that the majority went Trump, and he destroyed the competition vote wise. Perhaps IF the others ran campaigns, and got more votes, THEY would be in Trump's position right now. But they didn't, and they aren't.

Folks disagree. But when we disagree, we are wrong. If you disagree, it's because Trump and his stances are simply wrong. Of course bypass all debate and what not. :rolleyes:

But it's obvious, outside of your serious concerns for our constitution and what not - that you are willing see Hillary appoint anywhere from 1-4 SC justices, to change the complexion for the next generation at minimum. And also comfy with Hillary using any means possible to insert gun regulations, and worse, to try and alter the 2nd amendment. There's a SHITLOAD more that she'll do as a liberal, against what the majority of us here believe, but these 2 are the most prominent. I only keep asking as I don't get too much of in-depth answers from folks about how they feel about those 2 changes that will change in some manner. That's really my only issue for the most part, for those voting elsewhere, is what is going to happen with our SC and such. It would appear that some think giving up much of the SC and various gun rights - will be worth it in order to keep Trump out of office. And that's cool that you guys don't mind seeing things change for so long, or even permanently.

But here's the things. Over MANY years I have found out that debates between left/right are about constitutional issues, and that many on the right feel that much of what the left does is an overreach. A lot of those arguments end up at the feet of the SC. We all know what will happen should there be a 2-3 person advantage leaning left on this court. The potential for future changes to our country and and court challenges and policy or whatever you like to call it - so much would be changed over a generation or 2. So say all you like that Trump is not a republican, and enjoy repeating that as the left implements so much policy over the next generation for our kids and grandkids. And hope that our kids or grandkids will be allowed to protect themselves and their homes as was always intended.

jimnyc

08-26-2016, 12:43 PM

I DO vote against most of my family. Bunch of goofballs. I refuse to even talk politics with them.

Hell, I argue with the woman about politics quite often, even though we are both righties. This year, she would probably stay home or go someone else as well - but as I've written so many times here before, she's huge on the constitution, and outright said that's the one thing keeping her voting for Trump. My father in law, a Florida resident, and a HUGE gun enthusiast - will vote for ANYONE against Hillary to ensure that the 2nd isn't touched, and to hopefully avoid any "grabs" from Hillary.

Abbey Marie

08-26-2016, 12:46 PM

...
So i'm not moved by all the talk now of how bad Hilary is. We've known she was bad for years and we've known she VERY beatable.
But now Republicans are stuck with a stink bomb that suddenly claims he's "conservative" while he's SUPPORTTED the party and the very candidate he's now running AGAINST.
...

Bet you will be moved when the Supreme court goes majority lefty.

You appear to be a social conservative like me. It ain't gonna be pretty, my friend.

But hey, at least you can say you didn't vote for either of them. I'm sure that will keep you warm and fuzzy through it all.

Gunny

08-26-2016, 01:00 PM

Hell, I argue with the woman about politics quite often, even though we are both righties. This year, she would probably stay home or go someone else as well - but as I've written so many times here before, she's huge on the constitution, and outright said that's the one thing keeping her voting for Trump. My father in law, a Florida resident, and a HUGE gun enthusiast - will vote for ANYONE against Hillary to ensure that the 2nd isn't touched, and to hopefully avoid any "grabs" from Hillary.

Me n the GF don't talk politics. As I pointed out a conservative in NM is a lefty anywhere else I've lived. She posts in the food thread on USMB and talks to everyone in the world on social media.

I guarantee you my parents will vote for her. The daughter won't. She is a total conservative. Guess I did something right.:laugh: Youngest and ex will vote for her just because of the woman BS.

Gunny

08-26-2016, 01:02 PM

On another note, I didn't hear a change in stance. All I heard was the softening of his wording. Must've hired a speechwriter.:laugh:

jimnyc

08-26-2016, 01:13 PM

Gunny

08-26-2016, 01:14 PM

jimnyc

08-26-2016, 01:17 PM

On another note, I didn't hear a change in stance. All I heard was the softening of his wording. Must've hired a speechwriter.:laugh:

It's all about him not revving up the Trump Train and forcibly removing 11 million people. Like I said, in a perfect world that would be nice!! But that's not something that he went on about much. Folks are much more interested in this wall, and even then, they are much more interested in ENFORCEMENT of our laws, on many fronts. But it's not like he made some massive and irreversible change. But yes, mostly, all in all is that he softened his approach.

revelarts

08-26-2016, 01:26 PM

Bet you will be moved when the Supreme court goes majority lefty.

You appear to be a social conservative like me. It ain't gonna be pretty, my friend.

But hey, at least you can say you didn't vote for either of them. I'm sure that will keep you warm and fuzzy through it all.

Were boiling so high hot now that the FROG is almost DEAD.

abortion, and same sex marriage are already "legal" with the so called conservative people on the court now.

will it get worse? probably.
will enough americans care to do much about it.
I'm not so sure. Is Trump a "solution"? just like reagan and Bush 1 and Bush 2 they didn't reverse a thing.
I suspect Trump would do even less.

Abbey Marie

08-26-2016, 02:12 PM

Were boiling so high hot now that the FROG is almost DEAD.

abortion, and same sex marriage are already "legal" with the so called conservative people on the court now.

will it get worse? probably.
will enough americans care to do much about it.
I'm not so sure. Is Trump a "solution"? just like reagan and Bush 1 and Bush 2 they didn't reverse a thing.
I suspect Trump would do even less.

Trump has publicized a list of folks he will choose his nominees from. As I recall it was a pretty good list of conservative people. Trust me, the currently "Constitutional" abhorrent laws can change for the better with just one or two Conservative justices. A Hillary court will make current USSC opinions look far right wing by comparison.

jimnyc

08-26-2016, 02:18 PM

Trump has publicized a list of folks he will choose his nominees from. As I recall it was a pretty good list of conservative people. Trust me, the currently "Constitutional" abhorrent laws can change for the better with just one or two Conservative justices. A Hillary court will make current opinions look far right wing by comparison.

Yes, he did, and quite a few applauded him for his list. But some will then say that this is all a ruse, and that if he ever did get in, it would all be a lie and he would put in all lefties, and his sister too of course!

Abbey Marie

08-26-2016, 02:25 PM

Yes, he did, and quite a few applauded him for his list. But some will then say that this is all a ruse, and that if he ever did get in, it would all be a lie and he would put in all lefties, and his sister too of course!

Oh, you are so naive! He will abolish the court entirely, and Congress too. How else will he reign as Supreme Dictator?

NightTrain

08-26-2016, 02:28 PM

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Gunny

08-26-2016, 02:31 PM

jimnyc

08-26-2016, 02:38 PM

Fact is, no amount of deportation will work if you can't keep them from coming back. Wall first. Then throw them back over it as they're caught. Mass deportation will not work and will kill our economy.

I believe it was here.. but there was arguments to that very fact, that regardless of feelings, it would be too insanely expensive to try such- and that 'how can we do so" - as in do we send them back on trains, planes. But I know I don't have an issue, as you said, build the wall. Enforce ALL laws. Close companies if you have to - they need to STOP. Start getting rid of them in smaller numbers as they are found, laws broken and other ways the cockroaches come out when the lights come on.

Abbey Marie

08-26-2016, 02:42 PM

Fact is, no amount of deportation will work if you can't keep them from coming back. Wall first. Then throw them back over it as they're caught. Mass deportation will not work and will kill our economy.

There's no way for the IRS to catch every tax evader. That does not stop them from trying their hardest to do so. And that knowledge is a fairly effective method of keeping the rest of us honest at the same time.

Gunny

08-26-2016, 02:51 PM

There's no way for the IRS to catch every tax evader. That does not stop them from trying their hardest to do so. And that knowledge is a fairly effective method of keeping the rest of us honest at the same time.

I have a harder stance than Trump on the topic, so you're preaching to the choir. I'm just using some sense being from the first major city illegals come to in TX. You mass deport the illegals and construction comes to a halt. Construction and tourism keeps the city alive.

I also know from working construction, they catch these illegals, send them home and they're back in a month. You have to be able to keep them out first.

Abbey Marie

08-26-2016, 02:52 PM

I have a harder stance than Trump on the topic, so you're preaching to the choir. I'm just using some sense being from the first major city illegals come to in TX. You mass deport the illegals and construction comes to a halt. Construction and tourism keeps the city alive.

I also know from working construction, they catch these illegals, send them home and they're back in a month. You have to be able to keep them out first.

Totally agree with the bolded.

Kathianne

08-26-2016, 04:07 PM

So yes, you can deal with such changes should Hillary win and make changes to the 2nd and the SC. It's avoidable, but you prefer to stay with your conscience and not vote for Trump as originally stated.

I cannot. The issues to me are too important. I'd vote against my own family if that's what it took to keep the SC from crashing, and to preserve gun rights. In 4 to 8 years from now, if someone runs that everyone loves, it might be too late to fix some changes.

Of course you wouldn't, you admit you liked him best out of the 17. What bothers me, you don't mind, so of course your priorities are different. That's why we all get to vote.

Kathianne

08-26-2016, 04:12 PM

I don't want it to seem like I'm pointing solely at her, as these are the few things that I have been asking quite a few folks, about the SC and the 2nd. The majority of these folks want to discuss endlessly about how bad Trump is, or how bad the BOTH of them are, but not real into discussing what should happen, what if/any fallout there may be. 10 years from now there will be nothing left but any changes or fallout from the presidency. And thinking that way, I am 30000000000000000000% convinced that another Clinton presidency would be much more harmful than 4-8 of Trump. "I" like him, but even if I take the stance of "a republican/rightie" that is disgusted by Trump, I still see SO much more harm coming from her. Even if I assume everything folks speak of about what they don't like about him - it's still nothing in comparison to what this woman wants to do, can do and we all know WILL.

You asked lots of time, I answer, you basically go back to blaming me and those that find Trump and Clinton both unacceptable. If that makes you feel great, no problem. I feel good knowing I didn't have a hand in bringing either of these two forward to where they now are. If we get Clinton, blame those that nominated Trump. If we get Trump, the blame can be laid at the feet of those that put her forward.

Your cagillion percentage of certain is great for you, others aren't necessarily voting on your gut.

jimnyc

08-26-2016, 04:31 PM

You asked lots of time, I answer, you basically go back to blaming me and those that find Trump and Clinton both unacceptable. If that makes you feel great, no problem. I feel good knowing I didn't have a hand in bringing either of these two forward to where they now are. If we get Clinton, blame those that nominated Trump. If we get Trump, the blame can be laid at the feet of those that put her forward.

Your cagillion percentage of certain is great for you, others aren't necessarily voting on your gut.

Sure, I get my jollies.

No thanks.

aboutime

08-26-2016, 07:58 PM

Of course you wouldn't, you admit you liked him best out of the 17. What bothers me, you don't mind, so of course your priorities are different. That's why we all get to vote.

ONLY, KATHIANNE......"IF YOU 'DO' VOTE". Do you see what you are saying? Then telling us the opposite in a way???