Donald Trump

Renegade Mechanic

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Not the situation I was talking about. Large companies with the capability to move overseas are too highly regulated to risk employing illegals. It's cash businesses who can keep them 'off the books' that are the main culprits.

Perhaps you'd try reading my original post again and re-read the above. I've no sympathy for such employers. I said to go after them didn't I?

You did, and I explained why it's pointless. There's no point attacking the employer, because you're still left with the people.
Attack the situation that the employer benefits from instead. In one case, people with no taxation overheads and welfare payments being available for employment at a fraction of the cost of someone at the other end of the societal contribution scale..

And those large regulated companies you're referring to are taking advantage of the h1b visa...

While the visa is given to far more than illegals, it's another thing Trump has been against that Hillary has supported. The visa is also given to people who manage to work around the restrictions on issuing them to illegals via the use of anchor babies. There are many, many ways companies big and small can take advantage of the laws and loopholes already in place.
Laws and loopholes that will hopefully be dealt with.

Winterlong wrote: »

Talk in the media about Trump deciding to pull out of the race in the coming days. I cant see this happening.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/is-donald-trump-poised-to-drop-out-of-the-presidential-race-and-what-would-happen-if-he-did-a7170566.html

Well it would definitely prove he was a Clinton plant anyway, something I've entertained the thought of, the odd time.
Now that would be funnier than if he was seriously contending the presidency, much as I'd rather he was seriously contending...

He's an arsehole, never thought he wasn't, but having an arsehole on your side is better than having an arsehole that's not..

CMOTDibbler

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

You did, and I explained why it's pointless. There's no point attacking the employer, because you're still left with the people.
Attack the situation that the employer benefits from instead. In one case, people with no taxation overheads and welfare payments being available for employment at a fraction of the cost of someone at the other end of the societal contribution scale..

We were talking about Trump's wall. In that context, whether there are already ilegals in the country is irrelevant. Stop the problem at the demand side and the supply slows down and may eventually stop. Putting a wall up will just provide jobs for the tunnel diggers.

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

And those large regulated companies you're referring to are taking advantage of the h1b visa...

While the visa is given to far more than illegals, it's another thing Trump has been against that Hillary has supported. The visa is also given to people who manage to work around the restrictions on issuing them to illegals via the use of anchor babies. There are many, many ways companies big and small can take advantage of the laws and loopholes already in place.
Laws and loopholes that will hopefully be dealt with.

Visa applicants are documented. They're traceable and trackable and tend to be in higher paid jobs. You can stop that type of immigration at a snap of your fingers and it doesn't require any walls.

Ironically, there are questions now being asked about Melania Trump's visa status when she first entered the US.

20Cent

Winterlong wrote: »

Talk in the media about Trump deciding to pull out of the race in the coming days. I cant see this happening.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/is-donald-trump-poised-to-drop-out-of-the-presidential-race-and-what-would-happen-if-he-did-a7170566.html

If the writing on the wall is a big loss could see him pulling out and the republicans putting Paul "Ayn Rand" Ryan in. Still he'd need a good excuse for his ego to justify it.

PopePalpatine

Winterlong wrote: »

Talk in the media about Trump deciding to pull out of the race in the coming days. I cant see this happening.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/is-donald-trump-poised-to-drop-out-of-the-presidential-race-and-what-would-happen-if-he-did-a7170566.html

I could see one possible way for him to do so - in keeping with the "narcissist" profile which some journalists (including his ghost writer) have diagnosed him with, he'll simply give up and save himself the embarrassment of a likely defeat in the election by claiming there's no point in continuing with an election which he alleges is "rigged" in Hillary's favour.

The Rape of Lucretia

The guy may have something to offer, but I just couldnt vote for him myself - his hands are fricking tiny. For the size of the man, the are way out of proportion and remarkably small. I just couldnt sleep easy thinking that was the size of the finger on the nuclear button.

K-9

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Of course Trump, was running against a considerably larger number of rivals for the nomination. Think it could go either way.

Demographics suggest not, 4% of African Americans may vote Trump, not much more Latinos and he's extremely unpopular amongst women, even more women hate Trump than men hate Hillary.

While even knowledgeable election tipsters didn't foresee Trump in the Republican race, that was because he was an outlier to the norm.

So was Obama in 08, that is he was an outlier in the primaries but he was able to build on his appeal in the actual Presidential election. There is absolutely no signals that Trump is broadening his voter base. Yet!

It's too early to say but for me unless there is a significant change in his broader appeal, he has to be an outsider.

Experienced tipsters ignored the polls that kept on showing Trump winning state after state, the pollsters got it right, people who should have known better got it wrong. I've yet to see Trump leading a poll yet, never mind being the frontrunner by a mile!

BorneTobyWilde

Like Clint Eastwood said America is full of pussies, and Trump in on to something. Tells it like it is. It's best to let an American die than to insult a terrorist.
Trump will do ok and run a good race. The stats are against him though. Hilarious Clinton has so many people in her pocket, it's like voting for a secret society with her as the puppet, dance Hillary dance.

BorneTobyWilde

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KtzdP7mR-4

jimmy blevins

https://www.instagram.com/p/BIsv4GCBnjV/

The_Valeyard

jimmy blevins wrote: »

https://www.instagram.com/p/BIsv4GCBnjV/

Headquarters of the evil empire?

CMOTDibbler

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Like Clint Eastwood said America is full of pussies, and Trump in on to something. Tells it like it is. It's best to let an American die than to insult a terrorist.
Trump will do ok and run a good race. The stats are against him though. Hilarious Clinton has so many people in her pocket, it's like voting for a secret society with her as the puppet, dance Hillary dance.

Trump "Says it like it is"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ

Pro Hoc Vice

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

RCP Average7/28 - 8/3----47.440.6Clinton +6.8
A week ago the average was 4% a couple of days ago 5.1% This morning the average is 6.8%.

CMOTDibbler

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

RCP Average7/28 - 8/3----47.440.6Clinton +6.8
A week ago the average was 4% a couple of days ago 5.1% This morning the average is 6.8%.

It's early days yet, but if he continues to pick fights with people, ignore his advisors, tell lies and act like a spoiled teenager to every slight, Trump is going to continue to fall in the polls. But even Obama in 2008 didn't have a lead of that magnitude at this stage of the campaign.

stefanovich

Pro Hoc Vice wrote:

Fox News polling in 4 way race has Clinton +9% the average all polling data is Clinton ahead by 5.1%

Look at the details. All skewed in favour of democrats. For instance in the last McClatchy/Marist poll there were a clear majority of strong democrats in the sample. This is repeated in all the polls.

Pro Hoc Vice

stefanovich wrote: »

Look at the details. All skewed in favour of democrats. For instance in the last McClatchy/Marist poll there were a clear majority of strong democrats in the sample. This is repeated in all the polls.

Then explain http://m.rasmussenreports.com

Ramussen was one of the few polling companies saying Trump was ahead a few weeks ago, also it is a pure GOP poling company.

Can you post information on your claim the the polling companies are skewing the sample that is a very serious accusation.

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/trump_41_clinton_39[URL][/url]

My name is URL

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290489-asked-about-female-cabinet-members-trump-proposes-ivanka#

When asked what women he would nominate to his cabinet if elected, Donald Trump offered only his daughter’s name.

“Well we have so many different ones to choose,” he said in an interview with First Coast News that was first reported by Buzzfeed.
The interview was conducted by First Coast anchor Angelia Savage, who used to work for the mogul at the Trump Organization.

“I can tell you everybody would say, ‘Put Ivanka in, put Ivanka in,’ you know that, right?” Trump added, according to a transcript given to Buzzfeed.

“She’s very popular, she’s done very well, and you know Ivanka very well.

For a guy who pretends to be so tough on law and order, you'd think he'd be a bit more careful about suggesting that he'd break the law himself as president.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110

This thing just gets better and better. The man is imploding

PopePalpatine

Nah, the "law and order" bit only applies to those unruly "coloreds". :rolleyes:

CMOTDibbler

My name is URL wrote: »

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290489-asked-about-female-cabinet-members-trump-proposes-ivanka#



For a guy who pretends to be so tough on law and order, you'd think he'd be a bit more careful about suggesting that he'd break the law himself as president.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110

This thing just gets better and better. The man is imploding

It's his usual deniable prefix though: "People are saying..." or "Everybody is telling me..."

Once you hear him say that (which is pretty much all the time), you know it's going to be followed by a big fat lie.

Renegade Mechanic

The only way I'd have preferred Hillary over Trump is if all the Bloombergs, Buffets, Sunderlands, Soros', Rockefellers, Rothschilds, FR, Goldman Sachs et al, Media monopolies , and global corporations all came out in unified opposition to her, while using their media to make sure she was scrutinised in every way, while Trump wasn't.

That's the only way I'd consider supporting Hillary.
It has nothing to do with pathetic retards crying because 'he's offensive blub blub!' - like anyone cares what they or you or I think - and everything to do with the fact that people with their tentacles around the world are intensely disliking someone.

Although to support Hillary would also require her to not do things like yapping about women's rights while accepting millions from countries like Saudi Arabia but **** it, keep it simple..

Renegade Mechanic

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Nah, the "law and order" bit only applies to those unruly "coloreds". :rolleyes:

Lol.. I'm only guessing here, but I'm pretty sure more unruly whites have been told to GTFO of Trump rallies..
And far more blacks have attended than been thrown out for disruption, too.

El_Duderino 09

Renegade Mechanic wrote:

Lol.. I'm only guessing here, but I'm pretty sure more unruly whites have been told to GTFO of Trump rallies.. And far more blacks have attended than been thrown out for disruption, too.

What a meaningless made up statistic. Going by Trump's polling numbers with black voters I imagine the ratio of black to white supporters at rallies us tiny.

What would throwing people out of rallies have to do with it anyway? My understanding is that 'law and order' is a euphemism with a very specific meaning in the US

Christy42

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

The only way I'd have preferred Hillary over Trump is if all the Bloombergs, Buffets, Sunderlands, Soros', Rockefellers, Rothschilds, FR, Goldman Sachs et al, Media monopolies , and global corporations all came out in unified opposition to her, while using their media to make sure she was scrutinised in every way, while Trump wasn't.

That's the only way I'd consider supporting Hillary.
It has nothing to do with pathetic retards crying because 'he's offensive blub blub!' - like anyone cares what they or you or I think - and everything to do with the fact that people with their tentacles around the world are intensely disliking someone.

Although to support Hillary would also require her to not do things like yapping about women's rights while accepting millions from countries like Saudi Arabia but **** it, keep it simple..

Well the Trumps have come out in opposition to her. Also potentially looking at the issues might be better than I am going to support the opposite of X. I do get it requires more work though.

A: the Clinton foundation - not Hillary took that money. and B: Surely it is better than giving it back (or worse still yapping on about reducing women's rights https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/03/donald-trumps-ever-shifting-positions-on-abortion/).

CMOTDibbler

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

The only way I'd have preferred Hillary over Trump is if all the Bloombergs, Buffets, Sunderlands, Soros', Rockefellers, Rothschilds, FR, Goldman Sachs et al, Media monopolies , and global corporations all came out in unified opposition to her, while using their media to make sure she was scrutinised in every way, while Trump wasn't.

That's the only way I'd consider supporting Hillary.
It has nothing to do with pathetic retards crying because 'he's offensive blub blub!' - like anyone cares what they or you or I think - and everything to do with the fact that people with their tentacles around the world are intensely disliking someone.

Although to support Hillary would also require her to not do things like yapping about women's rights while accepting millions from countries like Saudi Arabia but **** it, keep it simple..

Are you actually suggesting that somehow Trump is being picked on unfairly? That his saying the things he says wouldn't be reported if "big business" didn't hate him so much?

everlast75

My name is URL wrote: »

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290489-asked-about-female-cabinet-members-trump-proposes-ivanka#

For a guy who pretends to be so tough on law and order, you'd think he'd be a bit more careful about suggesting that he'd break the law himself as president.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110

This thing just gets better and better. The man is imploding

well he doesn't have a problem with sexual harassment at work.. and if Ivanka works with him then..

abff

My name is URL wrote: »

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290489-asked-about-female-cabinet-members-trump-proposes-ivanka#



For a guy who pretends to be so tough on law and order, you'd think he'd be a bit more careful about suggesting that he'd break the law himself as president.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110

This thing just gets better and better. The man is imploding

Relatively minor gaffe in the context of all the rubbish he's come out with (and seems to have gotten away with). I don't think it's a question of him not knowing the law - it's simply that he doesn't give a damn whether or not what he's suggesting is against the law. It's only other people breaking the law that he's against.

When are us mere mortals going to understand that the rules that apply to ordinary people don't apply to The Donald?

everlast75

A contributor to Newstalk today mentioned that Hillary flat out lied to a Fox presenter about the FBI director believing her on the email issue. However, it was overlooked because oul Trump can't help putting his foot in it.

He said he was also surprised that the press latched on to the muslim family story, rather than a recent interview in which he said he wouldn't allow Russia to go into Ukraine... and then was flabergasted when the presenter said that they were already there!

Renegade Mechanic

Christy42 wrote: »

Well the Trumps have come out in opposition to her.

Well they'd... Kinda have to..

Christy42 wrote: »

Also potentially looking at the issues might be better than I am going to support the opposite of X. I do get it requires more work though.

Work you'll find here - Because ironically I'm to lazy to type it again
http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057596669/99/#post100520262

Christy42 wrote: »

A: the Clinton foundation - not Hillary took that money.

Please don't tell me you believe the Clintons haven't taken money out of it ffs

Christy42 wrote: »

and B: Surely it is better than giving it back

Nope. It would be better if they gave it back. Because the countries are sitting on hundreds of billions, so some millions is going to make sfa of a difference to them, but the symbolism of telling them to shove their ""donations"" would still be important.

Christy42 wrote: »

(or worse still yapping on about reducing women's rights https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/03/donald-trumps-ever-shifting-positions-on-abortion/).

He's changed a few times on it, like a few others.
http://time.com/4340358/donald-trump-women-abortions-punish/.
Mabye practice safer sex instead of lads and lassies riding for ridings sake?
Abortion should indeed be an option, but just that. Bad things happen, I get that, which is why it's needed. And only within the first trimester. Buy it's being almost marketed as a requirement to a free life - no, the requirement to a free life is responsibility. :pac:
Hillary reckons as long as you haven't been born, your rights don't exist. She supports late term abortions, which is way too far along the time line even for some more ardent liberals.

Anyway, it's not like Hillary was much better in terms of the ole flip-flops.
http://i.imgur.com/yZ0LZDP.jpg

Kermit.de.frog

My name is URL wrote: »

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290489-asked-about-female-cabinet-members-trump-proposes-ivanka#



For a guy who pretends to be so tough on law and order, you'd think he'd be a bit more careful about suggesting that he'd break the law himself as president.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110

This thing just gets better and better. The man is imploding

Nothing shocks me anymore about him. I do believe we are watching a man having a mental breakdown right in front of us. I think it's sad actually and whoever can should do the right thing and stop this candidacy.

Renegade Mechanic

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Are you actually suggesting that somehow Trump is being picked on unfairly? That his saying the things he says wouldn't be reported if "big business" didn't hate him so much?

Nope. Someone messes up, broadcast it. But you go ahead and assume otherwise. I'd just like to see the same treatment leveled at Hillary.
Generally won't happen because amongst the people backing her, are people who have vested interests in most of the countries media.

If they want her to win, they're hardly going to use their businesses to make her journey to the Whitehouse harder, are they?

A Little Pony

Once he gets her in the debates is when the tide will turn and shows Hillary to be the crook she is.

Megas Donald Trump!