Trump

Halifax2TheMax

The alt right and their alternate universe.

mrussel1

Colin Powell emails are hitting the wire...."National Disgrace..."

InHiding80

OnWis97 said:

InHiding80 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Pence refused to call David Duke "deplorable" tonight... Telling

People seem to forget that there's a VP debate as well. I hate both but Kaine is Bernie compared to gay conversion therapy Pence. Kaine will destroy him.

But Running Mate debates probably have little impact.

Tell that to McCain.

Gern Blansten

The Juggler said:

This is great. I guarantee he's not even under audit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4YsIaeNgio

There is absolutely no reason for him to not release the returns that are NOT under audit (they typically only audit three years at the most...unless they find fraud, then they can go back forever) and there is no reason why he can't release pages 1-2 of his returns under audit. That would not reflect any details that could get him in trouble.

Godfather.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/14/powell-warned-clinton-not-to-make-him-fall-guy-over-email-scandal-leaked-messages-reveal.html

dignin

HOW THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION'S FOREIGN BUSINESS TIES COULD UPEND U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY

A close examination by Newsweek of the Trump Organization, including confidential interviews with business executives and some of its international partners, reveals an enterprise with deep ties to global financiers, foreign politicians and even criminals, although there is no evidence the Trump Organization has engaged in any illegal activities. It also reveals a web of contractual entanglements that could not be just canceled. If Trump moves into the White House and his family continues to receive any benefit from the company, during or even after his presidency, almost every foreign policy decision he makes will raise serious conflicts of interest and ethical quagmires.


http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081.html

BS44325

It looks like the Washington Post is now on board

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/build-the-wall/2016/09/11/e94051e2-76b6-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?postshare=4741473820782960&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.54a424c636ae

The great negotiator is winning.

Gern Blansten

BS44325 said:

It looks like the Washington Post is now on board

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/build-the-wall/2016/09/11/e94051e2-76b6-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?postshare=4741473820782960&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.54a424c636ae

The great negotiator is winning.

That's an opinion piece.

BS44325

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

It looks like the Washington Post is now on board

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/build-the-wall/2016/09/11/e94051e2-76b6-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?postshare=4741473820782960&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.54a424c636ae

The great negotiator is winning.

That's an opinion piece.

It sure is.

oftenreading

BS44325 said:

It looks like the Washington Post is now on board

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/build-the-wall/2016/09/11/e94051e2-76b6-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?postshare=4741473820782960&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.54a424c636ae

The great negotiator is winning.

Well, it's certainly not a wholehearted endorsement of Trump. It's more of a "the guy's an unqualified idiot, but maybe we consider this aspect of the idea".

What I find strange, though, is that in this piece "the wall" is clearly just a proxy for something else; a larger policy piece, or rather several pieces:

● Change legal immigration criteria to favor employability (a.k.a. skills) over family connections. The emphasis would be on stimulating the nation’s economic growth.

● Require most businesses to belong to E-Verify, the government system that allows employers to check on the immigrant status of potential workers.

● Create a path to legality — and ultimately to citizenship — for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.

● Embrace policies — including a wall — that would credibly and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.

The first three points are only glancingly related to construction of a wall and obviously could be implemented without, while the fourth includes the wall among other ideas.

The central argument, though, is that none of the other things are going to get done unless there is agreement to build the wall, because that's apparently what Republicans want. So they're going to prevent movement on any other related policy if they don't get a wall - Without a wall, it’s doubtful that Republicans would enter meaningful negotiations on immigration policy Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Republican party, either.

The Juggler

Godfather. said:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/14/powell-warned-clinton-not-to-make-him-fall-guy-over-email-scandal-leaked-messages-reveal.html

Powell: "Trump is a national disgrace."

Halifax2TheMax

oftenreading said:

BS44325 said:

It looks like the Washington Post is now on board

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/build-the-wall/2016/09/11/e94051e2-76b6-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?postshare=4741473820782960&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.54a424c636ae

The great negotiator is winning.

Well, it's certainly not a wholehearted endorsement of Trump. It's more of a "the guy's an unqualified idiot, but maybe we consider this aspect of the idea".

What I find strange, though, is that in this piece "the wall" is clearly just a proxy for something else; a larger policy piece, or rather several pieces:

● Change legal immigration criteria to favor employability (a.k.a. skills) over family connections. The emphasis would be on stimulating the nation’s economic growth.

● Require most businesses to belong to E-Verify, the government system that allows employers to check on the immigrant status of potential workers.

● Create a path to legality — and ultimately to citizenship — for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.

● Embrace policies — including a wall — that would credibly and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.

The first three points are only glancingly related to construction of a wall and obviously could be implemented without, while the fourth includes the wall among other ideas.

The central argument, though, is that none of the other things are going to get done unless there is agreement to build the wall, because that's apparently what Republicans want. So they're going to prevent movement on any other related policy if they don't get a wall - Without a wall, it’s doubtful that Republicans would enter meaningful negotiations on immigration policy Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Republican party, either.

Explanation of alt right's alt universe.

BS44325

oftenreading said:

BS44325 said:

It looks like the Washington Post is now on board

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/build-the-wall/2016/09/11/e94051e2-76b6-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?postshare=4741473820782960&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.54a424c636ae

The great negotiator is winning.

Well, it's certainly not a wholehearted endorsement of Trump. It's more of a "the guy's an unqualified idiot, but maybe we consider this aspect of the idea".

What I find strange, though, is that in this piece "the wall" is clearly just a proxy for something else; a larger policy piece, or rather several pieces:

● Change legal immigration criteria to favor employability (a.k.a. skills) over family connections. The emphasis would be on stimulating the nation’s economic growth.

● Require most businesses to belong to E-Verify, the government system that allows employers to check on the immigrant status of potential workers.

● Create a path to legality — and ultimately to citizenship — for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.

● Embrace policies — including a wall — that would credibly and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.

The first three points are only glancingly related to construction of a wall and obviously could be implemented without, while the fourth includes the wall among other ideas.

The central argument, though, is that none of the other things are going to get done unless there is agreement to build the wall, because that's apparently what Republicans want. So they're going to prevent movement on any other related policy if they don't get a wall - Without a wall, it’s doubtful that Republicans would enter meaningful negotiations on immigration policy Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Republican party, either.

The wall is a proxy for "enforcement". The main problem is that conservatives do not trust that anything will be done on the enforcement front. The building of the wall convinces people that the government is finally serious about enforcement which will then softens views about allowing people who are already in the US illegally to stay provided they meet a few basic criteria. It is such a simple issue to solve. Enforcement first.

Go Beavers

BS44325 said:

It looks like the Washington Post is now on board

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/build-the-wall/2016/09/11/e94051e2-76b6-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?postshare=4741473820782960&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.54a424c636ae

The great negotiator is winning.

The Washington Post is a right wing paper.

oftenreading

BS44325 said:

oftenreading said:

BS44325 said:

It looks like the Washington Post is now on board

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/build-the-wall/2016/09/11/e94051e2-76b6-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?postshare=4741473820782960&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.54a424c636ae

The great negotiator is winning.

Well, it's certainly not a wholehearted endorsement of Trump. It's more of a "the guy's an unqualified idiot, but maybe we consider this aspect of the idea".

What I find strange, though, is that in this piece "the wall" is clearly just a proxy for something else; a larger policy piece, or rather several pieces:

● Change legal immigration criteria to favor employability (a.k.a. skills) over family connections. The emphasis would be on stimulating the nation’s economic growth.

● Require most businesses to belong to E-Verify, the government system that allows employers to check on the immigrant status of potential workers.

● Create a path to legality — and ultimately to citizenship — for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.

● Embrace policies — including a wall — that would credibly and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.

The first three points are only glancingly related to construction of a wall and obviously could be implemented without, while the fourth includes the wall among other ideas.

The central argument, though, is that none of the other things are going to get done unless there is agreement to build the wall, because that's apparently what Republicans want. So they're going to prevent movement on any other related policy if they don't get a wall - Without a wall, it’s doubtful that Republicans would enter meaningful negotiations on immigration policy Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Republican party, either.

The wall is a proxy for "enforcement". The main problem is that conservatives do not trust that anything will be done on the enforcement front. The building of the wall convinces people that the government is finally serious about enforcement which will then softens views about allowing people who are already in the US illegally to stay provided they meet a few basic criteria. It is such a simple issue to solve. Enforcement first.

It's an absurdly expensive, environmentally damaging and internationally divisive "proxy". But I guess some people need things really concrete.

BS44325

oftenreading said:

BS44325 said:

oftenreading said:

BS44325 said:

It looks like the Washington Post is now on board

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/build-the-wall/2016/09/11/e94051e2-76b6-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?postshare=4741473820782960&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.54a424c636ae

The great negotiator is winning.

Well, it's certainly not a wholehearted endorsement of Trump. It's more of a "the guy's an unqualified idiot, but maybe we consider this aspect of the idea".

What I find strange, though, is that in this piece "the wall" is clearly just a proxy for something else; a larger policy piece, or rather several pieces:

● Change legal immigration criteria to favor employability (a.k.a. skills) over family connections. The emphasis would be on stimulating the nation’s economic growth.

● Require most businesses to belong to E-Verify, the government system that allows employers to check on the immigrant status of potential workers.

● Create a path to legality — and ultimately to citizenship — for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.

● Embrace policies — including a wall — that would credibly and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.

The first three points are only glancingly related to construction of a wall and obviously could be implemented without, while the fourth includes the wall among other ideas.

The central argument, though, is that none of the other things are going to get done unless there is agreement to build the wall, because that's apparently what Republicans want. So they're going to prevent movement on any other related policy if they don't get a wall - Without a wall, it’s doubtful that Republicans would enter meaningful negotiations on immigration policy Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Republican party, either.

The wall is a proxy for "enforcement". The main problem is that conservatives do not trust that anything will be done on the enforcement front. The building of the wall convinces people that the government is finally serious about enforcement which will then softens views about allowing people who are already in the US illegally to stay provided they meet a few basic criteria. It is such a simple issue to solve. Enforcement first.

It's an absurdly expensive, environmentally damaging and internationally divisive "proxy". But I guess some people need things really concrete.

The costs of doing nothing are more, the effect on the environment would be inconsequential, and good fences make good neighbours. The only people who lose are the smugglers.

Gern Blansten

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/us/politics/donald-trump-health-dr-oz.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Donald J. Trump on Wednesday scrapped his previously announced plan to go over results from his most recent physical examination in a taped appearance with the television celebrity Dr. Mehmet Oz, aides to the Republican presidential nominee said.

Instead, Mr. Trump, 70, will appear on the “Dr. Oz Show,” but the two men will have a general discussion about health and wellness, not one anchored to the fitness of one of the two major candidates for president.

Mr. Trump has, over many months, sought to raise questions about the health of his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, 68, and his supporters have flatly claimed that she is hiding something about her health (her aides have strenuously denied this). But Mr. Trump has answered almost no questions about his own health over the last 15 months of his campaign, except for issuing a highly unusual doctor’s note.

So the appearance on Dr. Oz’s show, announced on Friday, had been anticipated as a potential breakthrough, as Mr. Trump’s aides had said that over the next few days he would release results from a physical examination taken last week. It was unclear when those results will be available after the change in approach with Dr. Oz.

When Mr. Trump sought someone in a public forum to talk about his health, he went with Dr. Oz, 56, a kindred spirit — a physician who is not only Republican, but also has spent the last decade attracting an enormous following on television.

The original release from the show about Mr. Trump’s appearance said that Mr. Trump would “share his vision for America’s health” with Dr. Oz, declaring boldly that it would be “a no-holds-barred conversation you’ll be talking about.”

In an interview with Fox News, Dr. Oz said he planned to ask “pointed questions,” but he suggested that most holds would, in fact, be barred.

Halifax2TheMax

BS44325 said:

oftenreading said:

BS44325 said:

oftenreading said:

BS44325 said:

It looks like the Washington Post is now on board

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/build-the-wall/2016/09/11/e94051e2-76b6-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?postshare=4741473820782960&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.54a424c636ae

The great negotiator is winning.

Well, it's certainly not a wholehearted endorsement of Trump. It's more of a "the guy's an unqualified idiot, but maybe we consider this aspect of the idea".

What I find strange, though, is that in this piece "the wall" is clearly just a proxy for something else; a larger policy piece, or rather several pieces:

● Change legal immigration criteria to favor employability (a.k.a. skills) over family connections. The emphasis would be on stimulating the nation’s economic growth.

● Require most businesses to belong to E-Verify, the government system that allows employers to check on the immigrant status of potential workers.

● Create a path to legality — and ultimately to citizenship — for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.

● Embrace policies — including a wall — that would credibly and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.

The first three points are only glancingly related to construction of a wall and obviously could be implemented without, while the fourth includes the wall among other ideas.

The central argument, though, is that none of the other things are going to get done unless there is agreement to build the wall, because that's apparently what Republicans want. So they're going to prevent movement on any other related policy if they don't get a wall - Without a wall, it’s doubtful that Republicans would enter meaningful negotiations on immigration policy Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Republican party, either.

The wall is a proxy for "enforcement". The main problem is that conservatives do not trust that anything will be done on the enforcement front. The building of the wall convinces people that the government is finally serious about enforcement which will then softens views about allowing people who are already in the US illegally to stay provided they meet a few basic criteria. It is such a simple issue to solve. Enforcement first.

It's an absurdly expensive, environmentally damaging and internationally divisive "proxy". But I guess some people need things really concrete.

The costs of doing nothing are more, the effect on the environment would be inconsequential, and good fences make good neighbours. The only people who lose are the smugglers.

Let me know when big agri-business and meat packers and large construction companies start lobbying the republican congress for enforcement of existing immigration laws. The republicans control both houses and could do something now. Check Obama's immigration enforcement legacy of late, professor.

oftenreading

BS44325 said:

oftenreading said:

BS44325 said:

oftenreading said:

BS44325 said:

It looks like the Washington Post is now on board

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/build-the-wall/2016/09/11/e94051e2-76b6-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?postshare=4741473820782960&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.54a424c636ae

The great negotiator is winning.

Well, it's certainly not a wholehearted endorsement of Trump. It's more of a "the guy's an unqualified idiot, but maybe we consider this aspect of the idea".

What I find strange, though, is that in this piece "the wall" is clearly just a proxy for something else; a larger policy piece, or rather several pieces:

● Change legal immigration criteria to favor employability (a.k.a. skills) over family connections. The emphasis would be on stimulating the nation’s economic growth.

● Require most businesses to belong to E-Verify, the government system that allows employers to check on the immigrant status of potential workers.

● Create a path to legality — and ultimately to citizenship — for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.

● Embrace policies — including a wall — that would credibly and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.

The first three points are only glancingly related to construction of a wall and obviously could be implemented without, while the fourth includes the wall among other ideas.

The central argument, though, is that none of the other things are going to get done unless there is agreement to build the wall, because that's apparently what Republicans want. So they're going to prevent movement on any other related policy if they don't get a wall - Without a wall, it’s doubtful that Republicans would enter meaningful negotiations on immigration policy Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Republican party, either.

The wall is a proxy for "enforcement". The main problem is that conservatives do not trust that anything will be done on the enforcement front. The building of the wall convinces people that the government is finally serious about enforcement which will then softens views about allowing people who are already in the US illegally to stay provided they meet a few basic criteria. It is such a simple issue to solve. Enforcement first.

It's an absurdly expensive, environmentally damaging and internationally divisive "proxy". But I guess some people need things really concrete.

The costs of doing nothing are more, the effect on the environment would be inconsequential, and good fences make good neighbours. The only people who lose are the smugglers.

No, it's simply not possible to build a massive wall bisecting the ranges of hundred of species without have a consequential environmental impact. Any wall that doesn't allow people through will not allow most non-avian species through, regardless of how they may attempt to mitigate this (if they even bother to attempt it. The track record here isn't good). Add in the environmental damage done during construction, including transportation of materials, equipment, and people, and the need to produce those materials themselves, and you have a potentially catastrophic impact.

Your other two points are so vague they're not really worth refuting.

mrussel1

BS44325 said:

oftenreading said:

BS44325 said:

oftenreading said:

BS44325 said:

It looks like the Washington Post is now on board

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/build-the-wall/2016/09/11/e94051e2-76b6-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?postshare=4741473820782960&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.54a424c636ae

The great negotiator is winning.

Well, it's certainly not a wholehearted endorsement of Trump. It's more of a "the guy's an unqualified idiot, but maybe we consider this aspect of the idea".

What I find strange, though, is that in this piece "the wall" is clearly just a proxy for something else; a larger policy piece, or rather several pieces:

● Change legal immigration criteria to favor employability (a.k.a. skills) over family connections. The emphasis would be on stimulating the nation’s economic growth.

● Require most businesses to belong to E-Verify, the government system that allows employers to check on the immigrant status of potential workers.

● Create a path to legality — and ultimately to citizenship — for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.

● Embrace policies — including a wall — that would credibly and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.

The first three points are only glancingly related to construction of a wall and obviously could be implemented without, while the fourth includes the wall among other ideas.

The central argument, though, is that none of the other things are going to get done unless there is agreement to build the wall, because that's apparently what Republicans want. So they're going to prevent movement on any other related policy if they don't get a wall - Without a wall, it’s doubtful that Republicans would enter meaningful negotiations on immigration policy Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Republican party, either.

The wall is a proxy for "enforcement". The main problem is that conservatives do not trust that anything will be done on the enforcement front. The building of the wall convinces people that the government is finally serious about enforcement which will then softens views about allowing people who are already in the US illegally to stay provided they meet a few basic criteria. It is such a simple issue to solve. Enforcement first.

It's an absurdly expensive, environmentally damaging and internationally divisive "proxy". But I guess some people need things really concrete.

The costs of doing nothing are more, the effect on the environment would be inconsequential, and good fences make good neighbours. The only people who lose are the smugglers.

Well first, I'm glad there's actually a serious discussion on this thread, rather than the shit bag on the Hillary thread about her health. But I do find it a curious argument by Samuelson that the only way to push comprehensive reform forward is by spending 15-25 billion. That seems like a waste of my money. It's not as if there won't be tunnels or any other way around said wall. I am not in favor of the wall to start, but using it as a way to get comprehensive reform makes it silly. Particularly because the GOP's second demand is "No amnesty". I have no faith that their far right flank would allow them to move from this position.