|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,856
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,856 |
The Trumpsters can and will think anything they want. They simply have no idea the effect of "Lyin'Ted" repeated daily for the entertainment of a Trumpster rally.
People are not going to just let that go.
What a lot of Cruz supporters fail to see is where Trump draws his support from. You all look at things very one dimensionally, like a line stretched left to right. There is more to the political spectrum than that. Trump gathers his support from the middle of the spectrum, which is why he is dangerous to the left and right leaning politically. 25% of the US is Republican, 30% are Democrats, and 45% are unaffiliated or Independent. Trump has a big portion of the R's and most likely even more support than that from the Independents and unaffiliated. He cuts off the left from the right, and has a bigger portion than either in the "middle". The right has nobody further to the right to support than Trump. The D's have their legs cut off because they will need to gain the Independent's to win a majority. What he's done is taken his piece of the pie right from the middle, forking up everyone elses piece of pie. Whether hard right voters vote for Trump or not doesn't make much difference this round. Trump has cut off access to the middle road voters, and that among other things that he's done, is what has the political machine in an uproar. He has left neither side enough room to fight him. Trump has reset the field in a way that neither the left or right like or are comfortable with. A 3rd party candidate would end him in an instant.
I retired from the Johns Manville asbestos pop tart factory in ‘59, and still never made the connection.—-Slumlord
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 16,610
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 16,610 |
He's already said the Federalist Society will be the group he uses to vet SCOTUS nominees. It doesn't get any better than that, and frankly their picks will be a LOT more likely to be confirmed (as they are already on the bench) than would Cruz or Lee who would be nothing more than a political pick and a glaringly obvious one. Ideally, I agree, but Trump has alienated lots of people and he would need them to unite. Picking the more "political" choice is a way to get a conservative on the SCOTUS AND win over potentially millions of votes in the process. Again, I see this as a strategy for winning and getting something I want.
"Hey jackass, get your government off my freedom."
MOLON LABE
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,863
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,863 |
Well the Republican establishment couldn't do it, so a loosely organized, poorly funded, small contingent would probably really do a number on Ol' Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
He's already said the Federalist Society will be the group he uses to vet SCOTUS nominees. It doesn't get any better than that, and frankly their picks will be a LOT more likely to be confirmed (as they are already on the bench) than would Cruz or Lee who would be nothing more than a political pick and a glaringly obvious one. Ideally, I agree, but Trump has alienated lots of people and he would need them to unite. Picking the more "political" choice is a way to get a conservative on the SCOTUS AND win over potentially millions of votes in the process. Again, I see this as a strategy for winning and getting something I want. It's an insane idea at this point. Later, perhaps, but to roll that out now is just political suicide for him and for the prospective nominee. Go ahead and give the Ds THAT much time to dig up anything on the nominee and use that nominee as a rally point in the election; epic stupidity. What you should want is making sure that Hitlery doesn't get that nominee and the one that will replace Ginsburg and likely Kennedy. After that, start worrying about who the nominee might be and how to influence it in the right direction.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43,756
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43,756 |
1) How, exactly, do you stop someone from legally immigrating the U.S.? No candidate is espousing that position, nor should they. To do so would be an extraordinary level of dumbphuckitude and imperialistic to a degree that even Hussein would envy.
2) Having the name, RIGHT NOW, is stupid. That gives the Ds HOW long to dig up crap on the nominee? Nomination fights are bad enough with a short time horizon. Naming a SCOTUS pick NOW is just insane.
3) How, exactly, do you prevent a free nation - especially an ally - from pursuing their own means of defense? Did we stop France or England or Israel? Should we have? Exactly how is meddling in the affairs of foreign ALLIED nations a conservative position and one that the U.S. should hold at all? 1) We're not talking legal immigration. We're talking Trump's plan is to give work permits and permanent legal status to all 10+ million undocumented aliens in the US. Cruz states plainly and frequently that his plan is to lock up jobs with e-Verify, to secure the border and to deport every illegal as soon as border or ICE agents catch them. 2) Right now might be stupid, but it's what I need. A promise to name some undefined person doesn't carry any weight. 3) The non-proliferation treaties have been in place for what.. 60+ years? It's worked well. Dropping it now in the age of increased terrorism is ridiculously stupid.
Last edited by Calhoun; 04/27/16.
“ The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,856
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,856 |
Well the Republican establishment couldn't do it, so a loosely organized, poorly funded, small contingent would probably really do a number on Ol' Trump. The convention is a clean break in the time line. The full force of all things political will come down on him if nominated. Especially the media.
I retired from the Johns Manville asbestos pop tart factory in ‘59, and still never made the connection.—-Slumlord
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
1) How, exactly, do you stop someone from legally immigrating the U.S.? No candidate is espousing that position, nor should they. To do so would be an extraordinary level of dumbphuckitude and imperialistic to a degree that even Hussein would envy.
2) Having the name, RIGHT NOW, is stupid. That gives the Ds HOW long to dig up crap on the nominee? Nomination fights are bad enough with a short time horizon. Naming a SCOTUS pick NOW is just insane.
3) How, exactly, do you prevent a free nation - especially an ally - from pursuing their own means of defense? Did we stop France or England or Israel? Should we have? Exactly how is meddling in the affairs of foreign ALLIED nations a conservative position and one that the U.S. should hold at all? 1) We're not talking legal immigration. We're talking Trump's plan is to give work permits and permanent legal status to all 10+ million undocumented aliens in the US. 2) Right now might be stupid, but it's what I need. A promise to name some undefined person doesn't carry any weight. 3) The non-proliferation treaties have been in place for what.. 60+ years? It's worked well. Dropping it now in the age of increased terrorism is ridiculously stupid. 1) Actually, Trump's idea is to have them leave. Even you said that. They, like anyone else, can reapply. 2) So, you admit to needing/wanting something that stupid. That's rather remarkable. Really, think about what it is you say you want, and how you admit that it's stupid. 3) Those treaties have required various things of us, such as serving as the armed forces for those other nations, that are no longer viable. When we withdraw from the treaty on our part, the other nations will withdraw as well. If the alternative is to continue to serve as the armed forces for Germany, South Korea, and whomever else, then it's a bad alternative. Hell, if you're concerned about terrorism then you really ought to pay more attention to Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, etc., than to stable nations like South Korea and Germany. The "terrorism" bit fails rather impressively on that angle.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43,756
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43,756 |
1) Actually, Trump's idea is to have them leave. Even you said that. They, like anyone else, can reapply. That is a misperception. As part of the plan to build the wall, Trump also includes laws which give automatic work permits to anybody who steps up as an illegal in the US. Step up, step out of the US, and you get a free entry back into the US almost immediately if you aren't a felon. No applying. No limits on how many. Automatic legalization for 10-30 million of them. http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/...eturn-of-the-good-ones-for-legal-status/Trump said Wednesday in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash that as president he would deport all undocumented immigrants and then allow the “good ones” to reenter the country through an “expedited process” and live in the U.S. legally, though not as citizens.
“Legal status,” Trump suggested. “We got to move ’em out, we’re going to move ’em back in if they’re really good people.”
“ The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076 |
1) Actually, Trump's idea is to have them leave. Even you said that. They, like anyone else, can reapply. That is a misperception. As part of the plan to build the wall, Trump also includes laws which give automatic work permits to anybody who steps up as an illegal in the US. Step up, step out of the US, and you get a free entry back into the US almost immediately if you aren't a felon. No applying. No limits on how many. Automatic legalization for 10-30 million of them. http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/...eturn-of-the-good-ones-for-legal-status/Trump said Wednesday in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash that as president he would deport all undocumented immigrants and then allow the “good ones” to reenter the country through an “expedited process” and live in the U.S. legally, though not as citizens.
“Legal status,” Trump suggested. “We got to move ’em out, we’re going to move ’em back in if they’re really good people.” I can only conclude that you have an issue with people coming to this Country legally.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
1) Actually, Trump's idea is to have them leave. Even you said that. They, like anyone else, can reapply. That is a misperception. As part of the plan to build the wall, Trump also includes laws which give automatic work permits to anybody who steps up as an illegal in the US. Step up, step out of the US, and you get a free entry back into the US almost immediately if you aren't a felon. No applying. No limits on how many. Automatic legalization for 10-30 million of them. http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/...eturn-of-the-good-ones-for-legal-status/Trump said Wednesday in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash that as president he would deport all undocumented immigrants and then allow the “good ones” to reenter the country through an “expedited process” and live in the U.S. legally, though not as citizens.
“Legal status,” Trump suggested. “We got to move ’em out, we’re going to move ’em back in if they’re really good people.” I can only conclude that you have an issue with people coming to this Country legally. That's not automatic legalization. It's legal immigration, and it's a path to citizenship (same as with any other legal immigrant). You've already admitted that your second requirement was stupid and moved away from it. Good. On this one, the wall keeps new illegals out. Current illegals are moved out, which is called deportation. Then, non-residents can APPLY for legal residency; that's called immigration. Through that process, and unless Congress puts a cap on it there isn't any, people LEGALLY come to the U.S. all the time. Well, at least the "good", "non-felon" ones do. This basically debunks your first requirement/demand. Care to go on to your third where you want us to meddle in the defense affairs of allies to the point of having to continue to be their military for them?
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43,756
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43,756 |
That's not automatic legalization. It's legal immigration, and it's a path to citizenship (same as with any other legal immigrant).
On this one, the wall keeps new illegals out. Current illegals are moved out, which is called deportation. Then, non-residents can APPLY for legal residency; that's called immigration. Through that process, and unless Congress puts a cap on it there isn't any, people LEGALLY come to the U.S. all the time. Well, at least the "good", "non-felon" ones do.
This basically debunks your first requirement/demand. Under that rationalization, the Gang of Eight bill was legal immigration. It was very little different from Trump's plan, except that the illegals didn't have to take a short vacation home first. Why are you arguing if you're in favor of legalizing all illegals? Just say it!!! And, by the way, I have worked with legal immigrants for 30 years. I know what they go through to get in, to stay employed and to work their way towards a green card. I've never met one that wasn't proud to have immigrated and to become an American. I've never met one that wasn't trying to accept American values. I've never met one that tore down American flags and put up their own country, or considering the wearing of a flag pin or piece of clothing an attack on them. Legalizing undocumented aliens is a joke. The fact that they are here means they are almost surely undesirables, they've already shown a willingness to break the law.
“ The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
That's not automatic legalization. It's legal immigration, and it's a path to citizenship (same as with any other legal immigrant).
On this one, the wall keeps new illegals out. Current illegals are moved out, which is called deportation. Then, non-residents can APPLY for legal residency; that's called immigration. Through that process, and unless Congress puts a cap on it there isn't any, people LEGALLY come to the U.S. all the time. Well, at least the "good", "non-felon" ones do.
This basically debunks your first requirement/demand. Under that rationalization, the Gang of Eight bill was legal immigration. It was very little different from Trump's plan, except that the illegals didn't have to take a short vacation home first. Why are you arguing if you're in favor of legalizing all illegals? Just say it!!! And, by the way, I have worked with legal immigrants for 30 years. I know what they go through to get in, to stay employed and to work their way towards a green card. I've never met one that wasn't proud to have immigrated and to become an American. I've never met one that wasn't trying to accept American values. I've never met one that tore down American flags and put up their own country, or considering the wearing of a flag pin or piece of clothing an attack on them. Legalizing undocumented aliens is a joke. The fact that they are here means they are almost surely undesirables, they've already shown a willingness to break the law. I'm not arguing for that. I am advocating for LEGAL immigration. The Gang of Eight thing was amnesty; straight up. The difference is that once they are OUT, they have to APPLY to come in. That's legal immigration, and it produces EXACTLY what you say you've worked with. Why you don't see the wall, deportation, and then the legal immigration process working is beyond me, but that's exactly Trump's position - build the wall, kick the illegals out, and then allow LEGAL immigration to work. There's no "legalizing" undocumented people currently here under that plan; the illegals are deported. Some may choose to apply for legal immigration thereafter, but there's no guarantee for any of them that they'd get in, and all the legal immigration steps would be taken to vet them. That, again, destroys your first "demand". Your second you've already admitted was stupid and have moved away from. Care for your third at this point?
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076 |
Legalizing undocumented aliens is a joke. The fact that they are here means they are almost surely undesirables, they've already shown a willingness to break the law.
You have no idea what poverty is and what lengths good people will go to keep their family from experiencing it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43,756
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 43,756 |
I'm not arguing for that. I am advocating for LEGAL immigration.
The Gang of Eight thing was amnesty; straight up. The difference is that once they are OUT, they have to APPLY to come in. That's legal immigration, and it produces EXACTLY what you say you've worked with. Why you don't see the wall, deportation, and then the legal immigration process working is beyond me, but that's exactly Trump's position - build the wall, kick the illegals out, and then allow LEGAL immigration to work. There's no "legalizing" undocumented people currently here under that plan; the illegals are deported. Some may choose to apply for legal immigration thereafter, but there's no guarantee for any of them that they'd get in, and all the legal immigration steps would be taken to vet them.
That, again, destroys your first "demand". Your second you've already admitted was stupid and have moved away from. Care for your third at this point? Not going to argue the 2nd two points when you want legalization of all 10-30 million illegals. It's a deal stopper. Legalize them now and give amnesty in 5 or 10 years is no different than giving them amnesty now. Trump is no different than Rubio or Jeb.
“ The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,192
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,192 |
Does any serious person think a wall is a reasonable option.
There are much better ways to control illegals.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,856
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,856 |
Legalizing undocumented aliens is a joke. The fact that they are here means they are almost surely undesirables, they've already shown a willingness to break the law.
You have no idea what poverty is and what lengths good people will go to keep their family from experiencing it. Especially when handed an open invitation and probably travelling per diem.
I retired from the Johns Manville asbestos pop tart factory in ‘59, and still never made the connection.—-Slumlord
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076 |
so is Ted for deportation and not allowing anyone back in that was previously here?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,076 |
Legalizing undocumented aliens is a joke. The fact that they are here means they are almost surely undesirables, they've already shown a willingness to break the law.
You have no idea what poverty is and what lengths good people will go to keep their family from experiencing it. Especially when handed an open invitation and probably travelling per diem. Probably. TFF
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
I'm not arguing for that. I am advocating for LEGAL immigration.
The Gang of Eight thing was amnesty; straight up. The difference is that once they are OUT, they have to APPLY to come in. That's legal immigration, and it produces EXACTLY what you say you've worked with. Why you don't see the wall, deportation, and then the legal immigration process working is beyond me, but that's exactly Trump's position - build the wall, kick the illegals out, and then allow LEGAL immigration to work. There's no "legalizing" undocumented people currently here under that plan; the illegals are deported. Some may choose to apply for legal immigration thereafter, but there's no guarantee for any of them that they'd get in, and all the legal immigration steps would be taken to vet them.
That, again, destroys your first "demand". Your second you've already admitted was stupid and have moved away from. Care for your third at this point? Not going to argue the 2nd two points when you want legalization of all 10-30 million illegals. It's a deal stopper. Legalize them now and give amnesty in 5 or 10 years is no different than giving them amnesty now. Trump is no different than Rubio or Jeb. Good God, you're being extraordinarily dense. At NO point have I argued in favor of legalization of 10-30M illegals. Never. Not once. Trump's position, the one you're supposedly attacking (his, not mine - there is a difference there), is to 1) build a wall; 2) deport the illegals; 3) allow non-residents to apply for LEGAL immigration into the U.S. That's it. That's all. There's no legalization for 10-30M illegals already here. There's no keeping them here. There is building a wall, kicking them out, and allowing people to apply for LEGAL immigration. That's his position. PLEASE show EXACTLY where he does what you accuse him of (offering legalization for 10-30M illegals already here that get to stay here); you can't, because it's not there. You admitted your second "demand" is stupid. Hard to defend stupid. Your third is counter to anything resembling conservatism, so it's going to be very hard to defend that one.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,856
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,856 |
so is Ted for deportation and not allowing anyone back in that was previously here? If IRC he was intentionally vague when asked this.
I retired from the Johns Manville asbestos pop tart factory in ‘59, and still never made the connection.—-Slumlord
|
|
|
|
|
324 members (16penny, 1beaver_shooter, 1minute, 1_deuce, 219 Wasp, 17CalFan, 45 invisible),
2,519
guests, and
1,360
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,112
Posts18,483,424
Members73,966
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
