2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Count Dooku

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

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?

Do you mean that USA can save some money by abolishing border guards and immigration service?

Fr Tod Umptious

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

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?

Illegal immigrants who have commies crimes, surprisingly they are not all deported.

I know of two Irish illegals who were deported because they were caught speeding and thus discovered to be undocumented.

During their detention while awaiting deportation (which tookna few months) they meet numerous others with rap sheets longer than your arm who had been undocumented for years also awaiting deportation.

CMOTDibbler

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Illegal immigrants who have commies crimes, surprisingly they are not all deported.

I know of two Irish illegals who were deported because they were caught speeding and thus discovered to be undocumented.

During their detention while awaiting deportation (which tookna few months) they meet numerous others with rap sheets longer than your arm who had been undocumented for years also awaiting deportation.

There's hardly hundreds of thousands of them surely? It's why I asked because by definition, criminals have been identified and accused/found guilty of a crime and if they are illegal immigrants as well, should be deported unless they are required to serve their sentence in the US and deported at the end of it.

Illegal immigration can be a crime, but only in the case of someone sneaking across the border, which in itself is hard to prove unless they are actually caught crossing the border. Being undocumented (illegal presence) is not a crime.

Pro Hoc Vice

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

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

How many illegals have been deported by current President?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/02/u-s-deportations-of-immigrants-reach-record-high-in-2013/

The current administration will have deported more people than all presidents in the the 20thC combined.

http://fusion.net/story/252637/obama-has-deported-more-immigrants-than-any-other-president-now-hes-running-up-the-score/

K-9

Count Dooku wrote: »

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

And he ended up sacking his campaign manager who had links to Russia. Tbh I don't know how anybody knows what foreign policy he has, he's no Sanders or Paul anyway.

He's hard on ISIS and Muslims so I'd expect plenty of interventions on that, it'll appeal to his base and he'll see it as popular. I don't think he's one to see long term effects.

KingBrian2

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

There's hardly hundreds of thousands of them surely? It's why I asked because by definition, criminals have been identified and accused/found guilty of a crime and if they are illegal immigrants as well, should be deported unless they are required to serve their sentence in the US and deported at the end of it.

Illegal immigration can be a crime, but only in the case of someone sneaking across the border, which in itself is hard to prove unless they are actually caught crossing the border. Being undocumented (illegal presence) is not a crime.

The trouble is the human trafficking that is going on. Coyote's are smuggling Mexicans across the border and dumping them by the side of the road. These people are then used as slaves for big business. This is wrong and must be stopped. Nothing out of Washington to change fundamentally the relationship that exists between America & Mexica because at the moment it is one of exploitation and for North of the border crime & drugs.

Pro Hoc Vice

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The trouble is the human trafficking that is going on. Coyote's are smuggling Mexicans across the border and dumping them by the side of the road. These people are then used as slaves for big business. This is wrong and must be stopped. Nothing out of Washington to change fundamentally the relationship that exists between America & Mexica because at the moment it is one of exploitation and for North of the border crime & drugs.

What is Trump going to change to exceed the almost 500,000 deportations a year currently made under the Obama administration. How many does Trump propose to deport.

KingBrian2

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

What is Trump going to change to exceed the almost 500,000 deportations a year currently made under the Obama administration. How many does Trump propose to deport.

Change the relationship with Mexico.

Pro Hoc Vice

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Change the relationship with Mexico.

That does not answer the question. What does it even mean. Answer the question not with a sound bite but with a proposal how Trump will deport more than 500,000 a year how will it be achieved, how many more deportations will he achieve? In the 8 years of Obamas presidency more people have been deported than in the years 1900 to 2000. So how many does Trump propose to deport in the first year. 1,000,000 2,000,000 10,000,000. Where is the policy document showing how big the problem is, how he will effect more than 500,000 deportations a year what will it cost.

KingBrian2

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

That does not answer the question. What does it even mean. Answer the question not with a sound bite but with a proposal how Trump will deport more than 500,000 a year how will it be achieved, how many more deportations will he achieve? In the 8 years of Obamas presidency more people have been deported than in the years 1900 to 2000. So how many does Trump propose to deport in the first year. 1,000,000 2,000,000 10,000,000. Where is the policy document showing how big the problem is, how he will effect more than 500,000 deportations a year what will it cost.

In those 100 years transportation, economic & social transformation has allowed millions of people to move around more freely. The rate of cross border travel has increased and increased with zero attempts to reverse this trend. If this continues more and more of the American West will become increasingly Mexican. Texas, Nevada & Arizona is already experiencing Hispanic only areas. I'd say renegotiating NAFTA would be a start. Trump is highlighting the problem of uncontrolled illegal immigration and security leniency.

Pro Hoc Vice

KingBrian2 wrote: »

In those 100 years transportation, economic & social transformation has allowed millions of people to move around more freely. The rate of cross border travel has increased and increased with zero attempts to reverse this trend. If this continues more and more of the American West will become increasingly Mexican. Texas, Nevada & Arizona is already experiencing Hispanic only areas. I'd say renegotiating NAFTA would be a start. Trump is highlighting the problem of uncontrolled illegal immigration and security leniency.

That's an answer to some question not sure who asked it because it was not me. If you want to engage in discussion then answer otherwise you like trump a spoofer. BTW much of your answer is factually incorrect but you not a fool you know that.

KingBrian2

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

That's an answer to some question not sure who asked it because it was not me. If you want to engage in discussion then answer otherwise you like trump a spoofer. BTW much of your answer is factually incorrect but you not a fool you know that.

You like to distort facts to suit your argument. Everyone does. The reality on the ground is that uncontrolled migration (the reasons for all the deportations) are having a devastating impact on the locals. Only Washington led by someone like Trump can deal with the Mexican police agents that are corrupt, cartel working officials. Their on the take.

Pro Hoc Vice

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You like to distort facts to suit your argument. Everyone does. The reality on the ground is that uncontrolled migration (the reasons for all the deportations) are having a devastating impact on the locals. Only Washington led by someone like Trump can deal with the Mexican police agents that are corrupt, cartel working officials. Their on the take.

So you don't want to answer the question? From that I can take it there is no policy and you have no idea what you are talking about. Unlike you I actually have facts you know those things Trump thinks the biased media use against him.

When I'm president of the World I'm going to send all bold people to Mars on a manned mission. I hear you ask how? Well of course I'll just change the relationship between the Earth and Mars.

I'm board with the nutters now and yes Trump is a card carrying nut job?

alaimacerc

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You like to distort facts to suit your argument. Everyone does. The reality on the ground is that uncontrolled migration (the reasons for all the deportations) are having a devastating impact on the locals. Only Washington led by someone like Trump can deal with the Mexican police agents that are corrupt, cartel working officials. Their on the take.

So under a Trump presidency, your theory is there will be no need for deportations (on any significant scale)? Or were you just dodging the "how many deportations?" question entirely?

KingBrian2

alaimacerc wrote: »

So under a Trump presidency, your theory is there will be no need for deportations (on any significant scale)? Or were you just dodging the "how many deportations?" question entirely?

No such statements I uttered. Trump has highlighted the serious issues on the Mexican border which presently exist. Your labeling of an entire group of people racist when their lives have been irrevocable impacted is insensitive.

As broken government has failed to house the residents of New Orleans. Washington is now looking increasingly irrelevant to the everyday lives of Americans in Texas, New Mexico & Nevada.

We are now looking at entire areas of the country with zero representation in Washington. What is the condition of local gvt in the Mid West which has seen industrial decline for decades?

If you look at New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts. Rudy Giuliana, Chris Christie & Mitt Romney are the most prominent leaders of those states. We see very little from most other states. More politicians like Trump would get results done quicker & efficiently.

alaimacerc

KingBrian2 wrote: »

No such statements I uttered.

Hence the question. You get the idea that a discussion involves engaging with the other person at some point? Is Trump going to deport more people? You were remarkably keen not to answer that. Now you're further dodging the logical followup, too.

Your labeling of an entire group of people racist when their lives have been irrevocable impacted is insensitive.

You'll please be so good as to demonstrate where I "uttered" such a thing.

More politicians like Trump would get results done quicker & efficiently.

Trump supporters such as yourself seem remarkably vague on what "results" even are. Much less on what basis you conclude he's at all likely to achieve them.

Pro Hoc Vice

alaimacerc wrote: »

Hence the question. You get the idea that a discussion involves engaging with the other person at some point? Is Trump going to deport more people? You were remarkably keen not to answer that. Now you're further dodging the logical followup, too.


You'll please be so good as to demonstrate where I "uttered" such a thing.


Trump supporters such as yourself seem remarkably vague on what "results" even are. Much less on what basis you conclude he's at all likely to achieve them.

It's all the biased media and facts them silly facts and real information. That stops all us stupid people understanding poor misunderstood self made man with the best words trump. I wish I was not so stupid and could understand him I really really do.

KingBrian2

alaimacerc wrote: »

Hence the question. You get the idea that a discussion involves engaging with the other person at some point? Is Trump going to deport more people? You were remarkably keen not to answer that. Now you're further dodging the logical followup, too.


You'll please be so good as to demonstrate where I "uttered" such a thing.


Trump supporters such as yourself seem remarkably vague on what "results" even are. Much less on what basis you conclude he's at all likely to achieve them.

The wall being built would deter people from entering the US since many Mexicans & Americans make an easy profit out of the trade.

Pro Hoc Vice

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The wall being built would deter people from entering the US since many Mexicans & Americans make an easy profit out of the trade.

How long will it take to build?

KingBrian2

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

It's all the biased media and facts them silly facts and real information. That stops all us stupid people understanding poor misunderstood self made man with the best words trump. I wish I was not so stupid and could understand him I really really do.

A balanced media would be able to explore other options but as of now the New York Observer is the only outlet that supports Trump overwhelmingly while all the others are against him.

KingBrian2

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

How long will it take to build?

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/03/what-it-would-take-build-trumps-border-wall-mexico/126514/

Pro Hoc Vice

KingBrian2 wrote: »

A balanced media would be able to explore other options but as of now the New York Observer is the only outlet that supports Trump overwhelmingly while all the others are against him.

Tuesday!

alaimacerc

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The wall being built would deter people from entering the US since many Mexicans & Americans make an easy profit out of the trade.

Surely it's supposed to "prevent", and not merely "deter". (Were it an actual policy, rather than just a political stunt, that is.) Though there's the small matter of the very large proportion of immigrants being visa-overstayers, rather than illegal-enterers.

Pro Hoc Vice

KingBrian2 wrote: »

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/03/what-it-would-take-build-trumps-border-wall-mexico/126514/

From your own link "The proposal crumbles at even the slightest scrutiny. No one who can build it would, and no one who would build it can."

You just messing you a closet Trump knocker.

Pro Hoc Vice

alaimacerc wrote: »

Surely it's supposed to "prevent", and not merely "deter". (Were it an actual policy, rather than just a political stunt, that is.) Though there's the small matter of the very large proportion of immigrants being visa-overstayers, rather than illegal-enterers.

Stop with the facts he just taking the piss bet he a total Prius driving democratic member.

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The wall being built would deter people from entering the US since many Mexicans & Americans make an easy profit out of the trade.

The wall will never be built. If it was the market on ladders will boom in Mexico. It's a ridiculous idea to begin with.

Suryavarman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You like to distort facts to suit your argument. Everyone does. The reality on the ground is that uncontrolled migration (the reasons for all the deportations) are having a devastating impact on the locals. Only Washington led by someone like Trump can deal with the Mexican police agents that are corrupt, cartel working officials. Their on the take.

There is no uncontrolled migration. What immigration there is isn't harming the locals either.

Count Dooku

Brian? wrote: »

The wall will never be built. If it was the market on ladders will boom in Mexico. It's a ridiculous idea to begin with.

Not according to Clinton

KingBrian2

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

From your own link "The proposal crumbles at even the slightest scrutiny. No one who can build it would, and no one who would build it can."

You just messing you a closet Trump knocker.

I merely referenced that article because that is the only one that is out in the public domain. Most of his policies are twisted by the media. In the article though you can see that the Wall is similar to previous projects performed by the Federal Gvt like the Erie Canal & Mississippi Tributary Project. The highway system & Hoover Dam. When compared to these massive investments the Wall can be constructed with architects, engineers & designers.

Brian?

Count Dooku wrote: »

Not according to Clinton

Can you give me the time in that video where Clinton advocates building a wall along the entire US-Mexican border?

Pro Hoc Vice

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I merely referenced that article because that is the only one that is out in the public domain. Most of his policies are twisted by the media. In the article though you can see that the Wall is similar to previous projects performed by the Federal Gvt like the Erie Canal & Mississippi Tributary Project. The highway system & Hoover Dam. When compared to these massive investments the Wall can be constructed with architects, engineers & designers.

No it will be done with cleaners and call centre operators. From now on I'm just spotting the crab you do, it does not answer anything is totally made up and in fact it down right dumb.

K-9

@Pro Hoc Vice and KingBrian2, tone it way down please.

Somebody not giving you the answer you want does not mean they didn't answer a question.

K-9

KingBrian2 wrote: »

A balanced media would be able to explore other options but as of now the New York Observer is the only outlet that supports Trump overwhelmingly while all the others are against him.

Mod:
There's a thread about media bias for people to post in about the anti Trump media, use it, thank you.

Black Swan

Count Dooku wrote: »

Whats wrong with building golf courses and reducing necessity for Arabs to go to USA play golf?

"Reducing the necessity for Arabs to go to the USA to play golf?" There are 20 golf courses in UAE where Trump built a bigger one (mentioned in the video interview with Donald and Ivanka Trump), as well as around the world, so this "reducing" statement does not make any sense. Trump acquired Arab monies to build the Dubai golf resort in 2014 to profit himself, Ivanka, and his Arab investor friends, so the Trump's are not above taking Arab monies to profit themselves. If Trump is elected, more personal profits will be realised from occupying the Oval Office for the Trump business interests, just like Ivanka Trump modeling and selling her pink dress (and "collection") while introducing her father Donald at the RNC (a pink dress NOT made in USA, that sold out by the 2nd day after RNC). "Shop Ivanka's look from her #RNC speech." If Donald is elected president, America will be up for sale to personally profit the Trumps.

Count Dooku

Black Swan wrote: »

"Reducing the necessity for Arabs to go to the USA to play golf?" There are 20 golf courses in UAE where Trump built a bigger one (mentioned in the video interview with Donald and Ivanka Trump), as well as around the world, so this "reducing" statement does not make any sense. Trump acquired Arab monies to build the Dubai golf resort in 2014 to profit himself, Ivanka, and his Arab investor friends, so the Trump's are not above taking Arab monies to profit themselves.

Whats wrong with profiting from golf which is the most peaceful sport on earth?
While Clinton was selling arms to despot regimes on exchange for donations to Clinton foundations and those arms are now killing children in Yemen

Black Swan wrote: »

If Trump is elected, more personal profits will be realised from occupying the Oval Office for the Trump business interests, just like Ivanka Trump modeling and selling her pink dress (and "collection") while introducing her father Donald at the RNC (a pink dress NOT made in USA, that sold out by the 2nd day after RNC). "Shop Ivanka's look from her #RNC speech."

I don't like girls in pink dress myself, but still it is much better than earn 600,000 from NBC for doing nothing like Chelsea Clinton did

CMOTDibbler

Count Dooku wrote: »

Whats wrong with profiting from golf which is the most peaceful sport on earth?
While Clinton was selling arms to despot regimes on exchange for donations to Clinton foundations and those arms are now killing children in Yemen

First I've heard that Hillary Clinton is an arms dealer. Have you something to back that up?

Count Dooku wrote: »

I don't like girls in pink dress myself, but still it is much better than earn 600,000 from NBC for doing nothing like Chelsea Clinton did

I'm sure NBC can justify paying big money to a well known person in order to attract viewers.

Amerika

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I'm sure NBC can justify paying big money to a well known person in order to attract viewers.

$600,000 is now the pay scale for a rookie network news correspondent with no news experience whatsoever to do a handful of feel-good stories? And she was pretty awful at it.

Man, I’m in the wrong profession.

She got that money because her name was Chelsea Clinton... American royalty. And NBC's access, through family ties to her parents, got the “get.” I’m sure hard working journalists everywhere had no problem with this... not.

And at the time she indicated she'd donate most of the money she earned at NBC to charity. Seems lying is in the family DNA.

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

She got that money because her name was Chelsea Clinton...

In a world where people not competent to read stuff out on the radio off a script get a prominent gig with our "public service national broadcaster" based on who their dad was, I think that one's readily filed under "Gambling, in Casablanca?"

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

$600,000 is now the pay scale for a rookie network news correspondent with no news experience whatsoever to do a handful of feel-good stories? And she was pretty awful at it.

Man, I’m in the wrong profession.

She got that money because her name was Chelsea Clinton... American royalty. And NBC's access, through family ties to her parents, got the “get.” I’m sure hard working journalists everywhere had no problem with this... not.

And at the time she indicated she'd donate most of the money she earned at NBC to charity. Seems lying is in the family DNA.

So what? Honestly who really cares.

Headline news: "Famous Woman has it Easy".

Donald Trump is rich because his father left him a pile of money. George W Bush got to dodge the draft because his father was rich and powerful. JFK got a run at a senate seat because of his rich and powerful father. It's America, it happens all the time.

To single out Chelsea Clinton is the height of hypocrisy.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

So what? Honestly who really cares.

Headline news: "Famous Woman has it Easy".

Donald Trump is rich because his father left him a pile of money. George W Bush got to dodge the draft because his father was rich and powerful. JFK got a run at a senate seat because of his rich and powerful father. It's America, it happens all the time.

To single out Chelsea Clinton is the height of hypocrisy.

No it isn't. It is just another example of serial Clintonian influencing peddling, IMO. If the Clinton's 'business' wasn't government business then I would tend to agree with you.

Amerika

Here’s a list (so far) of our celebrities who have said they’ll leave America if Trump is elected:

Barbra Streisand, Lena Dunham, Samuel L. Jackson, Miley Cyrus, Cher, Jon Stewart, Raven Symone, Natasha Lyonne, Omari Hardwick, Spike Lee, Chloë Sevigny, Eddie Griffin, George Lopez, Al Sharpton, Neve Campbell, Rosie O'Donnell, Whoopi Goldberg, and Chelsea Handler.

I remember a similar list who promised to leave the US when GW Bush was running. Unfortunately, I don’t think any of them fulfilled their promises. Whenever I see a new celebrity added to this list of shameless attention seekers I want to yell ‘just shut up and sing/act,’ because I know they'll never go through with it.

Chips Lovell

One of the most interesting things I've read in a while about the rise of Trump was this essay in the Guardian which argues that his platform is not really new and that he's instead tapped into a strain of US conservatism that can trace its roots as far back as James Burnham's 1941 book The Managerial Revolution , via people like Samuel Francis, who was active in Republican circles in the 1980s. Both claimed that capitalists were being supplanted by technocrats, an elite managerial class bent on destroying traditional class and religious identities.

Interestingly, it points to Pat Buchanan's presidential run in 1996 as a precursor to Trump's:

Francis and Buchanan were linked by their association with a breakaway faction on the right known as paleoconservatism. While mainstream conservatives had taken advantage of cushy gigs in New York and Washington, paleocons depicted themselves as spokesmen for the forgotten residents of flyover country. Francis urged Buchanan to make another run for the White House in 1996, this time as the candidate of the post-bourgeois resistance. That campaign would be based on three issues: protectionism, opposition to immigration and an “America First” foreign policy that repudiated global commitments and foreign interventions in order to focus on defending the national interest.

Trump appears like a more polished, showbiz version of Buchanan but also, crucially, has a more receptive audience, emerging at a time when white, working class America is running out of patience with the Republican establishment and looking for alternatives.

CMOTDibbler

Amerika wrote: »

$600,000 is now the pay scale for a rookie network news correspondent with no news experience whatsoever to do a handful of feel-good stories? And she was pretty awful at it.

Man, I’m in the wrong profession.

NBC paid her because of her name, not her experience. Didn't Sarah Ferguson get a gig a few years back because of who she was married to?

That's the way the TV world works you know. Otherwise you wouldn't have "I'm a celebrity" crap plasetered all over our TV screens. :rolleyes:

CMOTDibbler

Amerika wrote: »

No it isn't. It is just another example of serial Clintonian influencing peddling, IMO. If the Clinton's 'business' wasn't government business then I would tend to agree with you.

You could say the same about the Bush 'dynasty'.

Except of course the Bush influence peddling was in your face.

Amerika

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

You could say the same about the Bush 'dynasty'.

Except of course the Bush influence peddling was in your face.

Please cite the Bush influence peddling you reference and how they profited from it.

Count Dooku

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

First I've heard that Hillary Clinton is an arms dealer. Have you something to back that up?

It was well known year ago
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
But now more details are coming
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/emails-show-clinton-foundation-donor-reached-out-hillary-clinton-arms-export-boost
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/24/clinton-approved-arms-sales-big-donations-bahrain/

CMOTDibbler

Amerika wrote: »

Please cite the Bush influence peddling you reference and how they profited from it.

Ever heard of the Carlyle Group?

Look it up. It's very interesting. Especially the bit about the Bin Laden family's connection to GHW Bush through it. But that's just light reading. The interesting stuff is how the Bush's profited from wars. And guess how many wars they started got involved in?

CMOTDibbler

Count Dooku wrote: »

It was well known year ago
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
But now more details are coming
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/emails-show-clinton-foundation-donor-reached-out-hillary-clinton-arms-export-boost
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/24/clinton-approved-arms-sales-big-donations-bahrain/

The State Department. Not Hillary Clinton. Now you might think that's being pedantic, but you said she was an arms dealer. And the inference seems to be that the State Department is a mere puppet that can be persuaded to make deals regardless of their merits merely because the Sec. of State thinks so? If she thinks so and there's provable evidence that she made the running on it.

And please don't quote Breitbart as a source. I have to have a scalding hot shower every time I visit that website and I still never feel clean.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

No it isn't. It is just another example of serial Clintonian influencing peddling, IMO. If the Clinton's 'business' wasn't government business then I would tend to agree with you.

Influence peddling? Chelsea got a job because she's Bill and Hilary's daughter. That's it.

RobertKK

Donald Trump will meet Mexican President Pena Nieto later today, hours before he gives his immigration speech.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/770811688966770689