2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

I've already addressed your points in this post. Which you ignored.

The US Constitution doesn't ban anything of the sort.

Perhaps I didn’t think it was worthy of comment as it appears to ignore the obvious.

But okay... I saw an interview with the reporter of the AP piece. He specifically said he did not include meetings (I recall a number mentioned like 1,700, but I might be wrong) that she had with heads of state because they were part of her diplomatic duties. But he did mention that some of the foreign emissaries did contribute to the Clinton Foundation.

The crux of the AP piece was that when it came to individuals getting access to the Secretary of State, statistics showed you had a greater chance if you were a substantial donor to the Clinton Foundation. Any reasonable person would agree that 55% is more than coincidence.

And apparently a number of requests started with top foundation official Doug Band who would notify Abedin of ‘good friends’ seeking a meeting with Clinton.

From the AP piece…

'The 154 did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives. Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP's calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.'

And the US Constitution does ban Hillary’s governmental payola. It can be found in the Emoluments Clause from Article VI of the Articles of Confederation. The purpose of the clause was to prevent foreign governments from buying influence in the US by paying off US government officials.

Also, from the House...
http://ethics.house.gov/gifts/house-gift-rule

From the Senate...
http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/gifts

And specific language from the State Department...
Executive branch employees are subject to restrictions on the gifts that they may accept from sources outside the Government. Unless an exception applies, executive branch employees may not accept gifts that are given because of their official positions or that come from certain interested sources (“prohibited sources”).

A prohibited source is a person (or an organization made up of such persons) who: is seeking official action by, is doing business or seeking to do business with, or is regulated by the employee’s agency, or has interests that may be substantially affected by performance or nonperformance of the employee’s official duties.
Executive branch employees are subject to restrictions on the gifts that they may accept from sources outside the Government. Unless an exception applies, executive branch employees may not accept gifts that are given because of their official positions or that come from certain interested sources (“prohibited sources”).

A prohibited source is a person (or an organization made up of such persons) who: is seeking official action by, is doing business or seeking to do business with, or is regulated by the employee’s agency, or has interests that may be substantially affected by performance or nonperformance of the employee’s official duties.

Again... Did the foreign governments have business with the State Department? Were the the foreign governments generally seeking official action by the U.S. State Department? Again... You betcha!

K-9

Mod:

People can start a thread on media bias if they want to discuss that. The thread has been hijacked by attacking media bias to sidestep actually addressing issues, it has gone on long enough.

Either deal with the subject by debating the article or provide alternative articles from "unbiased" media.

Btw, I don't give a bollicks what side is doing it!

Amerika

marienbad wrote: »

Even though you support Trump , I have always suspected you are a reasonable guy behind it all , don't make me begin to doubt you

Even the blurps on that article should have raised your suspicions - what was it - '80 of 158 meetings with HRC resulted in donations' or something like that !

The US Secretary of State had only 150 odd meetings in 4 Years ! She really was asleep on the job if that were true. It has been seriously debunked in the article linked by Suryararman

I think you are reading the AP article incorrectly. The 155 meetings of individuals did not result in donations. The donations were already made beforehand and appears, throughg statistics, to be the grease on the wheel that got access to Clinton.

And as I noted... "I saw an interview with the reporter of the AP piece. He specifically said he did not include meetings (I recall a number mentioned like 1,700, but I might be wrong) that she had with heads of state because they were part of her diplomatic duties. But he did mention that some of the foreign emissaries did contribute to the Clinton Foundation."

Sorry, but what you noted far from 'debunks' the AP piece, IMO.

Amerika

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

They will turn up in a few hours (waiting for the download from HQ) start talking about something different, then when questioned about the immigration policy say the media are being mean and Hillary forced the change as she is behind the selling immigrants babies for donations.

Au contraire mon ami.

Did I call it, or did I call it?

Trump’s evolving tactic on immigration is exactly as I predicted over a year ago...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98012186&postcount=2804

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

Au contraire mon ami.

Did I call it, or did I call it?

Trump’s evolving tactic on immigration is exactly as I predicted over a year ago...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98012186&postcount=2804

So, all along, while his supporters have been lauding Trump for "telling it like it is", he's actually been espousing a position he doesn't actually believe in as a starting point for negotiations?

Interesting.

Pro Hoc Vice

Amerika wrote: »

Au contraire mon ami.

Did I call it, or did I call it?

Trump’s evolving tactic on immigration is exactly as I predicted over a year ago...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98012186&postcount=2804

The problem is he is now where many have been saying the USA should be anyway. To start with mad and then end up where many said immigration reform should be anyway is not a good deal. It's like a person selling a house for 250,000 I offer a mad €1 then a year later I not only offer €250,000 but I say I'll give them a case of Dom as well and give them my first child. If that's doing a deal that's a bad deal maker.

Did the download from HQ take that long should get a better service provider.

You said a year ago, "You then make concessions though negotiations to finally come to the point you really meant to get to in the first place. "

Trump now saying if you good person and pay your tax will give you amnesty, sounds like a thing the left have been proposing for years.


https://www.democrats.org/issues/immigration-reform[URL][/url]

RobertKK

Both sides have associated themselves with people or government I can't stand.

Trump and his love of Brexit and Nigel Farage. I was and still am strongly anti-Brexit. hope they are given a bad deal and they have a referendum on it and end up remaining.
Nigel Farage is the epitome of someone who is obnoxious.

Then Clinton and the chairman of her campaign John Podesta who the Washington Post says is working directly with the lobbying for the Saudis. You couldn't make these things up.

Trump shouldn't be using Nigel Farage who most poeple don't like.
Clinton shouldn't be associating with the Saudis the way she has been directly and indirectly given most people have issues with that country.

I think both could be questioned on their judgement in each case.

Amerika

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Did the download from HQ take that long should get a better service provider.

First of all there is a time difference between us and I do need a few hours of sleep in order to function at my customary top level. And secondly, it takes some time to fire up the wayback machine. :P

Suryavarman

RobertKK wrote: »

When it comes to the Clinton Foundation which is an issue in this election.
Can the people who defend Hillary and the foundation explain why after Saudi Arabia donated $10 million to the Clinton Foundation did the sales of weapons/military equipment increased by 97% under during the tenure of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State?



http://observer.com/2016/08/hillary-clinton-likely-to-increase-weapons-exports-to-saudi-arabia/

So the chairman of the Hillary Clinton campaign has a company in his name that is being paid $140,000 a month to lobby on behalf of Saudi Arabia.
Given the Clinton's past dealing with the Saudi's both as secretary of state and the Clinton foundation, they do seem to be in the pocket of the Saudis, and to have the chairman of the Clinton campaign setting up a company to lobby for the Saudis is really something else.

You should ask the secretaries of the various different departments that would have had to okay such sales.

Amerika wrote: »

Perhaps I didn’t think it was worthy of comment as it appears to ignore the obvious.

But okay... I saw an interview with the reporter of the AP piece. He specifically said he did not include meetings (I recall a number mentioned like 1,700, but I might be wrong) that she had with heads of state because they were part of her diplomatic duties. But he did mention that some of the foreign emissaries did contribute to the Clinton Foundation.

The crux of the AP piece was that when it came to individuals getting access to the Secretary of State, statistics showed you had a greater chance if you were a substantial donor to the Clinton Foundation. Any reasonable person would agree that 55% is more than coincidence.

And apparently a number of requests started with top foundation official Doug Band who would notify Abedin of ‘good friends’ seeking a meeting with Clinton.

From the AP piece…

'The 154 did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives. Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP's calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.'

And the US Constitution does ban Hillary’s governmental payola. It can be found in the Emoluments Clause from Article VI of the Articles of Confederation. The purpose of the clause was to prevent foreign governments from buying influence in the US by paying off US government officials.

Also, from the House...
http://ethics.house.gov/gifts/house-gift-rule

From the Senate...
http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/gifts

And specific language from the State Department...
Executive branch employees are subject to restrictions on the gifts that they may accept from sources outside the Government. Unless an exception applies, executive branch employees may not accept gifts that are given because of their official positions or that come from certain interested sources (“prohibited sources”).

A prohibited source is a person (or an organization made up of such persons) who: is seeking official action by, is doing business or seeking to do business with, or is regulated by the employee’s agency, or has interests that may be substantially affected by performance or nonperformance of the employee’s official duties.
Executive branch employees are subject to restrictions on the gifts that they may accept from sources outside the Government. Unless an exception applies, executive branch employees may not accept gifts that are given because of their official positions or that come from certain interested sources (“prohibited sources”).

A prohibited source is a person (or an organization made up of such persons) who: is seeking official action by, is doing business or seeking to do business with, or is regulated by the employee’s agency, or has interests that may be substantially affected by performance or nonperformance of the employee’s official duties.

Again... Did the foreign governments have business with the State Department? Were the the foreign governments generally seeking official action by the U.S. State Department? Again... You betcha!

I can see maths isn't your strong point. 85 as a percentage of 1,700 is 5% not 55%.

Do you have any actual evidence that Clinton met with people because they were donors to the Clinton Foundation or do you just have these wild conspiracy theories you are so fond of?

None of the laws you're referencing have anything to do with what Clinton supposedly did.

Also, the Articles of Confederation isn't the Constitution. The Constitution is the Constitution. I realise that it's a subtle difference but hopefully you'll be able to remember it the next time you try to back up one of your conspiracy theories.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

So, all along, while his supporters have been lauding Trump for "telling it like it is", he's actually been espousing a position he doesn't actually believe in as a starting point for negotiations?

Interesting.

I can't believe after all this time you continue to doubt me.

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

You should ask the secretaries of the various different departments that would have had to okay such sales.

Well Obama listened to her in regards to bombing Gaddafi out of power, a man the Saudis didn't like.
Though Obama didn't when it came to Syria, also with a leader that the Saudis detest.
Hillary Clinton is hugely influential, and everyone knew she was going for the presidency when Obama's terms were complete.

Gic=ven the report which linked the Saudis to 9/11, one would think the powers that be would be re-accessing their ties to the backward kingdom of Saudi Arabia, not having your chairman for your presidential campaign taking direct involvement in lobbying for the Saudi government.

KingBrian2

RobertKK wrote: »

Well Obama listened to her in regards to bombing Gaddafi out of power, a man the Saudis didn't like.
Though Obama didn't when it came to Syria, also with a leader that the Saudis detest.
Hillary Clinton is hugely influential, and everyone knew she was going for the presidency when Obama's terms were complete.

Gic=ven the report which linked the Saudis to 9/11, one would think the powers that be would be re-accessing their ties to the backward kingdom of Saudi Arabia, not having your chairman for your presidential campaign taking direct involvement in lobbying for the Saudi government.

The big problem with America's policies to date is they have been no peace feelers with the Syrian gvt. Even by seeing US officials collaborating with the Saudi's give out the wrong impression. It tells the other powers we are actively supporting one of the worst Kingdoms in the world. Washington gets zero out the relationship with Saudi Arabia.

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

Well Obama listened to her in regards to bombing Gaddafi out of power, a man the Saudis didn't like.
Though Obama didn't when it came to Syria, also with a leader that the Saudis detest.
Hillary Clinton is hugely influential, and everyone knew she was going for the presidency when Obama's terms were complete.

Gic=ven the report which linked the Saudis to 9/11, one would think the powers that be would be re-accessing their ties to the backward kingdom of Saudi Arabia, not having your chairman for your presidential campaign taking direct involvement in lobbying for the Saudi government.

Do you know of any American politician of consequence in the last 40 years that has not turned a blind eye and applied double standards as regards the Saudi's ?

KingBrian2

marienbad wrote: »

Do you know of any American politician of consequence in the last 40 years that has not turned a blind eye and applied double standards as regards the Saudi's ?

All of whom are Democrats and Republicans of which the American electorate are being told one party is less corrupt than the other. Their both at it and those who said 9/11 was connected to Jihadists financed in Saudi Arabia & Pakistan have proven to be correct. The propagandists have their jobs cut out for them trying to invent stories to terrorize the people.

marienbad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

All of whom are Democrats and Republicans of which the American electorate are being told one party is less corrupt than the other. Their both at it and those who said 9/11 was connected to Jihadists financed in Saudi Arabia & Pakistan have proven to be correct. The propagandists have their jobs cut out for them trying to invent stories to terrorize the people.

So while single out HRC if it is settled US foreign policy ?

KingBrian2

marienbad wrote: »

So while single out HRC if it is settled US foreign policy ?

The decision makers determine the course of US foreign policy. Not a single mention of the calamitous treatment of Palestinians. I realize the West Bank situation is a difficult topic. We all know the Democrats whatever about the Republicans are in complete support of remaining dogmatically supportive of Israel despite the outpouring of hostility towards Arabs across the settlements and into the Golan Heights, Syrian territory as recognized by international law.

marienbad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The decision makers determine the course of US foreign policy. Not a single mention of the calamitous treatment of Palestinians. I realize the West Bank situation is a difficult topic. We all know the Democrats whatever about the Republicans are in complete support of remaining dogmatically supportive of Israel despite the outpouring of hostility towards Arabs across the settlements and into the Golan Heights, Syrian territory as recognized by international law.

Again why single out HRC ?

KingBrian2

marienbad wrote: »

Again why single out HRC ?

Head of the Democratic party. According to some the next President of America and all those charities, organizations & relief agencies are answerable to her. The various heads of state requested meetings with her as did business & civil society.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

edit: You can call them anecdotal, but I look at it more as a private poll. Just about everyone I talk to that plans on voting for Trump I ask if they participate in presidential polls. Almost unanimously the answer I get is they refuse to participate int these polls. Granted my samplings are small, but they could be reflective of what is actually happening.

Your so-called poll was definitely anecdotal from a research methods standpoint (i.e., pseudo-science), and your so-called sampling was what they call a convenience sample that was non-random and terribly biased as it was based upon your emic POV. Many biases may be in effect, including confirmation bias, experimenter bias, self-fulfilling prophecy, etc. And because your poll was non-random we cannot estimate confidence levels or confidence intervals; nor can we attempt to estimate population parameters, nor can it be statistically representative, nor can it be generalised to the population of Pennsylvania registered voters, or a segment thereof. Lacking an empirical/scientific methods sampling design, systematic error cannot be ruled out. In terms of your "samplings are small," the latest PA.gov voter registration statistics effective 22 August 2016 show Democrats (4,084,707), Republicans (3,167,515), no party affiliation (681,343), and other (434,586) for a Pennsylvania total of registered voters of 8,368,151. Now, exactly how many different persons of these 8.3 million plus Pennsylvania registered voters by the 4 PA.gov categories listed did you ask if they were responding to the various PA or national polls or voting for Trump (and in recent days, perhaps since RNC, because voters change their minds)?

marienbad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Head of the Democratic party. According to some the next President of America and all those charities, organizations & relief agencies are answerable to her. The various heads of state requested meetings with her as did business & civil society.

Bit of a stretch isn't it , to hold her responsible now for US foreign policy for the last 40 years ?

Would she be more responsible now for all the cock ups in the ME than say - Dick Condi and Donald and President Bush ? What do you think ?

KingBrian2

marienbad wrote: »

Bit of a stretch isn't it , to hold her responsible now for US foreign policy for the last 40 years ?

Would she be more responsible now for all the cock ups in the ME than say - Dick Condi and Donald and President Bush ? What do you think ?

She is continuing on the failed policies of her predecessors.

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

She is continuing on the failed policies of her predecessors.

What will Trump so so differently?

PopePalpatine

Let's remind ourselves of Mike Pence's foreign policy record, shall we?

Too Long; Won't Click version: he supported the war in Iraq, supported intervention in Libya, supported NAFTA, CAFTA and the current trade situation with China and opposed measures to compensate American workers who were impacted negatively by globalisation.

KingBrian2

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Let's remind ourselves of Mike Pence's foreign policy record, shall we?

Too Long; Won't Click version: he supported the war in Iraq, supported intervention in Libya, supported NAFTA, CAFTA and the current trade situation with China and opposed measures to compensate American workers who were impacted negatively by globalisation.

Clinton's got plenty of Globalist friends herself.

Wolfowitz is part of a growing list of GOP national security and foreign policy officials who have announced their intention to support the Democratic presidential nominee. But though Clinton has proudly announced the backing of other Republicans, it’s less likely she will roll out a news release touting the support from Wolfowitz.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-george-w-bush-s-iraq-war-architect-1472236048-htmlstory.html

Pro Hoc Vice

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Clinton's got plenty of Globalist friends herself.

Wolfowitz is part of a growing list of GOP national security and foreign policy officials who have announced their intention to support the Democratic presidential nominee. But though Clinton has proudly announced the backing of other Republicans, it’s less likely she will roll out a news release touting the support from Wolfowitz.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-george-w-bush-s-iraq-war-architect-1472236048-htmlstory.html

We talking about the Don Trumpm keep up.

KingBrian2

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

We talking about the Don Trumpm keep up.

Actually the discussion has moved on from there. His running mate was brought up who was pro Iraq war. Hillary voted for the war and has expressed no desire to terminate current US foreign policy. Trump's kite flying of changing US policy has resulted in outrage from the mainstream media. Lets withdraw from NATO, the media screamed. Lets stop getting involved in the Arab lands, the media screamed. Lets allow Mexicans enter America legally and safely, the media went berserk and finally lets have better deals with China, Russia & Cuba and the media again come down hard on him.

marienbad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

She is continuing on the failed policies of her predecessors.

And don't forget she killed Cock Robin , JR , Shergar and is singlehandedly responsible for climate change !

At what stage does it become ridiculous ?

CMOTDibbler

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Actually the discussion has moved on from there. His running mate was brought up who was pro Iraq war. Hillary voted for the war and has expressed no desire to terminate current US foreign policy. Trump's kite flying of changing US policy has resulted in outrage from the mainstream media. Lets withdraw from NATO, the media screamed. Lets stop getting involved in the Arab lands, the media screamed. Lets allow Mexicans enter America legally and safely, the media went berserk and finally lets have better deals with China, Russia & Cuba and the media again come down hard on him.

Let's allow Mexicans enter safely?? Is he going to supply ladders?

KingBrian2

marienbad wrote: »

And don't forget she killed Cock Robin , JR , Shergar and is singlehandedly responsible for climate change !

At what stage does it become ridiculous ?

Your changing the conversation onto nonsensical areas. I am referencing her work as Senator of the United States of America and contender for President of the United States of America.

CMOTDibbler

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Your changing the conversation onto nonsensical areas. I am referencing her work as Senator of the United States of America and contender for President of the United States of America.

Nope, you're projecting.

marienbad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Your changing the conversation onto nonsensical areas. I am referencing her work as Senator of the United States of America and contender for President of the United States of America.

But you are not , you are just compiling a kitchen sink of what you think is wrong with the US and throwing it at her without rhyme or reason.

And all the time excusing and glossing over the prime movers that are really responsible .

I just wonder how you will square the circle of Trump's U-turn on immigration

KingBrian2

marienbad wrote: »

But you are not , you are just compiling a kitchen sink of what you think is wrong with the US and throwing it at her without rhyme or reason.

And all the time excusing and glossing over the prime movers that are really responsible .

I just wonder how you will square the circle of Trump's U-turn on immigration

As in her husband who signed the NAFTA agreement. Now saying Trump is responsible for racism. Lack of jobs and feeling scared due to the rising level of crime in the border areas.

marienbad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

As in her husband who signed the NAFTA agreement. Now saying Trump is responsible for racism. Lack of jobs and feeling scared due to the rising level of crime in the border areas.

Trump U-turn - any comments ?

CMOTDibbler

KingBrian2 wrote: »

As in her husband who signed the NAFTA agreement. Now saying Trump is responsible for racism. Lack of jobs and feeling scared due to the rising level of crime in the border areas.

That looks awfully like George Bush senior signing the NAFTA.

KingBrian2

marienbad wrote: »

Trump U-turn - any comments ?

You'll see over the next few weeks Trump's real views on immigration will be revealed. I don't see him backing away from having a strict border policy but it will be more reassuring to all whom it concerns.

KingBrian2

I can show pictures too.

marienbad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You'll see over the next few weeks Trump's real views on immigration will be revealed. I don't see him backing away from having a strict border policy but it will be more reassuring to all whom it concerns.

His real views ??? Was he lying up to now so ? Like just to win the nomination ?

marienbad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I can show pictures too.

You are not seriously contending that NAFTA was not a GHW Bush policy are you ?

ancapailldorcha

Raise the standard of posting please. I'd ask people to refrain from posting pics unless they contribute to discussion.

CMOTDibbler

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I can show pictures too.

NAFTA was US policy going back to the late eighties. You implied it was Bill Clinton that started it.

You might not like it, but you can't keep blaming Hillary Clinton for policies that predate her possible presidency.

KingBrian2

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

NAFTA was US policy going back to the late eighties. You implied it was Bill Clinton that started it.

You might not like it, but you can't keep blaming Hillary Clinton for policies that predate her possible presidency.

I'm not blaming Hillary I just don't see her making any difference to current US policy. Trump on the other hand could may well alter US relations with other Nations in a very good way. Imagine the look on the King of Saudi Arabia and Kim Il Sung's face if Trump was elected President of America.

marienbad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I'm not blaming Hillary I just don't see her making any difference to current US policy. Trump on the other hand could may well alter US relations with other Nations in a very good way. Imagine the look on the King of Saudi Arabia and Kim Il Sung's face if Trump was elected President of America.

Never mind the look on Enda Kenny's , Merkel , May , Holland and most of the world !

Black Swan

22 May 2014 Donald Trump Unveils Trump International Golf Club, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Both Donald Trump and Ivanka Trump discuss their entry into the Middle East beginning with Muslim Arab nation UAE. It seems that Donald Trump, if elected president, wants to ban Muslims from the US, but not Muslim overseas investments that may profit him personally.

Count Dooku

Brian? wrote: »

What will Trump so so differently?

He already become enemy number one after he proposed to improve relations with Russia

Count Dooku

Black Swan wrote: »

22 May 2014 Donald Trump Unveils Trump International Golf Club, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Both Donald Trump and Ivanka Trump discuss their entry into the Middle East beginning with Muslim Arab nation UAE. It seems that Donald Trump, if elected president, wants to ban Muslims from the US, but not Muslim overseas investments that may profit him personally.

Whats wrong with building golf courses and reducing necessity for Arabs to go to USA play golf?
While Clinton was approving selling arms to Arabs for donations to Clinton foundation
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

gosplan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I'm not blaming Hillary I just don't see her making any difference to current US policy. Trump on the other hand could may well alter US relations with other Nations in a very good way. Imagine the look on the King of Saudi Arabia and Kim Il Sung's face if Trump was elected President of America.

The collective politicians of the world would have a giggle fit and then just eat him for breakfast in negotiations.

Trump doesn't have a clue. He's soon going to have to get rid of his THIRD campaign manager. He can't even get a campaign right because he doesn't have a clue of the pitfalls but he'll somehow be a competent president?

It's a really really bad joke tbh.

Calina

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You'll see over the next few weeks Trump's real views on immigration will be revealed. I don't see him backing away from having a strict border policy but it will be more reassuring to all whom it concerns.

http://www.france24.com/en/20160828-trump-promises-begin-deportations-soon-sworn-immigration-usa

I don't think his policy is going to be more reassuring to all of whom it may concern.

CMOTDibbler

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I'm not blaming Hillary I just don't see her making any difference to current US policy. Trump on the other hand could may well alter US relations with other Nations in a very good way. Imagine the look on the King of Saudi Arabia and Kim Il Sung's face if Trump was elected President of America.

There's very little chance of radical change without the approval of Congress. Since currently the GOP have control of Congress, Hillary will have a battle on her hands to make changes and strangely enough so will Trump since many Republicans are distancing themsleves from his wacky policies.

Fr Tod Umptious

Calina wrote: »

http://www.france24.com/en/20160828-trump-promises-begin-deportations-soon-sworn-immigration-usa

I don't think his policy is going to be more reassuring to all of whom it may concern.

What exactly is wrong deporting "criminal illegal immigrants" or developing a working entry /exit recording system ?

CMOTDibbler

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

What exactly is wrong deporting "criminal illegal immigrants" or developing a working entry /exit recording system ?

What exactly are 'criminal' illegal immigrants? Are they illegal immigrants who are being considered criminal because they're illegal immigrants or illegal immigrants who commit crimes?