Why Should Anyone Vote For Trump ?

[Kutnupe14]

Progressive ideology is meant to foster control and power not make sense in a world where capitalism would raise the general standards of society. They can't take over if they don't break it first. therefor raise the minimum wage and bring in cheap illegal labor. There, it's broke now let your betters fix it.

As for immigration legal or not to say that no one was talking about this or paying attention is just towing the MSM line. No one in the media was talking about anyone's immigration positions until they got the message of hatred they wanted to tag on the R's. It's not like those positions weren't out there...just no one payed attention.

We probably wouldn't have near the illegal immigration problem, if the GOP hadn't thrust amnesty on us, in the form of 3.2M illegals. After that, it makes sense why more and more illegals kept coming; they believe it will happen again.

 

[Hohn]

I'm so sick of hearing this bull****, and so is the rest of the country. Opposing illegal immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens does not equal opposing legal immigration, or opposing the rights of legal immigrants.

Trump is dividing the country along the lines of legal vs illegal, and US border vs Mexico border. And I'm 100% in agreement with that division.

My rep mag is out of ammo, so take this QFT as a substitute.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Pretty well aware of the definition of the term leader. Feel free to provide yours though, I suppose its possible I've been mislead after 24 years in military and paramilitary organizations.

The only people who think Trump is dividing the nation along racial lines are the morons who see racism in cereal box pictures. There's no shortage of idiots who attempt to push a racial component onto everything, you'll have to forgive me if I choose to ignore their ignorant drivel.

My personal definition? I'd say someone who inspires people to follow them, rather than someone who gets followers because they oppose who that persons opponents are. Adding into that is someone who leads, and supports their followers. Look at the CO caucus for example. Trumps supporters were leaderless during it, the person he put in charge didn't meet with anyone, was pretty much invisible. Then was replaced what a week before the caucus.

Is Riggs (in his position as chief) or before him Hite a leader? Why or why not. How about Riggs position as director of the DPS, how about Wantz or Straub?

There is one irrefutable basis on which to demonstrate the Trump is a leader: he has followers. Now, we may be dismayed by this, and find him to be an unprincipled leader, or one not deserving of his position of influence-- but he HAS the influence and he IS a leader.

There are legitimate grounds to criticize Trump, but "racism" is not one of them.

A relevant video for those who see racism everywhere:
[video]https://youtu.be/pMYRYKvAEaY[/video]

I'll disagree, just because people are following does not in fact mean a person is a leader.

I didn't criticize Trump on "racism", but in my opinion his dividing the country by race. There is a difference. And I like Whittle, and generally agree with him, including on that video.

I'm so sick of hearing this bull****, and so is the rest of the country. Opposing illegal immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens does not equal opposing legal immigration, or opposing the rights of legal immigrants.

Trump is dividing the country along the lines of legal vs illegal, and US border vs Mexico border. And I'm 100% in agreement with that division.

I'll agree with your second sentence. But disagree with your third. Case in point.

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

No mention of illegals, although his campaign did later "clarify" that is what he was referring to. How many times has his campaign had to do that? And his ending of that comment," some, I assume, are good people". Implying at least IMO that he was saying that they are the minority. He also mentioned those from the middle east, but no comment at all about all the other immigrants legal and otherwise from elsewhere. How about eastern Europe? Asia, including the Indiana subcontinent? Or elsewhere. Well he has made comments on H1B visas of which a lot of people stereotype as mainly from the Indiana subcontinent.

Divisions = votes. The more a candidate can divide an electorate, then collect a "coalition," the more likely he or she is to win the election.

Trump's candidacy is all about divisions. He vilifies all sorts of groups to aggregate his coalition. In fact, his coalition is somewhat unique in the modern era, with all the crossover support he's getting.

While he doesn't use explicitly racist terms, I believe he's totally comfortable allowing racists into his coalition. Racists vote, too, donchaknow. It is all about closing the deal. If people divided along racial lines helps him win, then so be it.

I do not know, and offer no opinion, on whether the man is personally prejudiced.

I can agree with this.

Opposing illegal immigration is not racist, it is prudent economically.

Regards,

Doug

I can agree with this. But see above.

We probably wouldn't have near the illegal immigration problem, if the GOP hadn't thrust amnesty on us, in the form of 3.2M illegals. After that, it makes sense why more and more illegals kept coming; they believe it will happen again.

Are you talking about the 1986 IRCA, which was introduced by a Dem and had bi-partisan support? Although iirc a lot more Repubs voted against it than Dems. Although I can't find the exact breakdown on who voted which way, the Congress vote record webpage only goes back to the 90's.

 

[phylodog]

You'll not rope me into making comments about those in my chain of command. I no longer possess a freedom of speech in that regard.

Trump meets my definition of a leader in more ways than not. He says more things I agree with than doesn't.

 

[chipbennett]

I'll agree with your second sentence. But disagree with your third. Case in point.

When Mexico sends its people

No mention of illegals, although his campaign did later "clarify" that is what he was referring to.

When Mexico is "sending" people to the US, they are sending illegal aliens. Mexico is officially encouraging its citizens to emigrate illegally to the United States. They even published and distributed an instruction manual:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/w...-illegal-migrants-upsets-some-in-us.html?_r=0

Mexico is "indignant" that US would deign to deport illegal aliens:

Mexican president 'indignant' at U.S. deportations | Reuters

Mexico made an agreement with Guatemala to facilitate migration through Mexico into the US:

Yes, the Mexican Government is Facilitating the Immigrant Influx from Central America - The Rush Limbaugh Show

 

[T.Lex]

If there is a punitive tax on wire transfers to Mexico, regardless of the source within the US, is that something that Mexico would be properly indignant about?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You'll not rope me into making comments about those in my chain of command. I no longer possess a freedom of speech in that regard.

Trump meets my definition of a leader in more ways than not. He says more things I agree with than doesn't.

My apologies, I wasn't trying to rope you into anything. I was just using those as an example. I agree with quite a bit he says, heck quite possibly the majority of what he says. I don't necessarily believe what he says, but I do agree with it. And we can agree to disagree on whether he is a leader or not. My belief is not just based on his campaign, as I stated in another in a reply to BoR I had the opportunity to spend time with several of his higher ups in a business I worked for. These included people involved in development/planning to day to day operations that worked with Trump. I didn't get the sense that he was a leader from them. A boss, yes. Leader, no.

When Mexico is "sending" people to the US, they are sending illegal aliens. Mexico is officially encouraging its citizens to emigrate illegally to the United States. They even published and distributed an instruction manual:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/w...-illegal-migrants-upsets-some-in-us.html?_r=0

Mexico is "indignant" that US would deign to deport illegal aliens:

Mexican president 'indignant' at U.S. deportations | Reuters

Mexico made an agreement with Guatemala to facilitate migration through Mexico into the US:

Yes, the Mexican Government is Facilitating the Immigrant Influx from Central America - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Doesn't the US put out pamphlets for US citizens going to other countries? Does not Mexico have the obligation to protect their citizens? I don't see how they are sending them here illegally from that or encouraging them.

Just because the Mexican president is indignant over our deportations, doesn't mean they are encouraging them to illegally immigrate.

That link from Limbaugh is BS. What he is talking about is a visitor visa for residents of certain countries to travel to Mexico. It is valid for 5 years and allows those citizens to spend up to 72 hrs at a time in Mexico. Are some who use them attempting to illegally enter the US, sure. But that does not mean it is the reason behind it.
ETA Here is a link that explains what it is.
http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news...nded-to-additional-central-american-migrants/

Oh and you might want to check this link out.
Mexico operations thwart child, family migrants - Washington Times

 

[chipbennett]

Doesn't the US put out pamphlets for US citizens going to other countries? Does not Mexico have the obligation to protect their citizens? I don't see how they are sending them here illegally from that or encouraging them.

The pamphlets give instructions for safely crossing the border using illegal entry means. Can you cite a source for the US publishing and distributing analogous pamphlets for US citizens to enter other countries illegally?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Are you talking about the 1986 IRCA, which was introduced by a Dem and had bi-partisan support? Although iirc a lot more Repubs voted against it than Dems. Although I can't find the exact breakdown on who voted which way, the Congress vote record webpage only goes back to the 90's.

Not completely accurate. The bill was introduced by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_K._Simpson , a Republican. Though, the name of bill, Simpson-Mazzoli, the latter is a Democrat.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/senate-bill/1200

And it isn't clear that a lot more Republicans voted against it than Democrats. I'll have to dig further, but this article indicates that there was pretty staunch opposition by some Democrats.

HOUSE, BY 216-211, APPROVES ALIENS BILL AFTER RETAINING AMNESTY PLAN IN FINAL TEST - NYTimes.com

It is pointed out that many Republicans in Florida supported the bill (mostly due to Cuban support), and many in Texas opposed. I'm sure much of that support was based on "Mariel."

 

[T.Lex]

The pamphlets give instructions for safely crossing the border using illegal entry means. Can you cite a source for the US publishing and distributing analogous pamphlets for US citizens to enter other countries illegally?

Not really the same, but I recall Cold War propaganda explaining how to defect from places like East Germany and Russia.

This seems an odd tangent to follow, though. If we don't like what Mexico is doing, that is the hard job of diplomacy. The problem with that is that solid principles help provide consistency.

 

[Hohn]

My personal definition? I'd say someone who inspires people to follow them, rather than someone who gets followers because they oppose who that persons opponents are.

I think that's a distinction without much of a difference, like when the preacher says 'we must stop interpreting the Bible based on what we THINK it says and based on what it ACTUALLY say"-- is there a difference?

Adding into that is someone who leads, and supports their followers. Look at the CO caucus for example. Trumps supporters were leaderless during it, the person he put in charge didn't meet with anyone, was pretty much invisible. Then was replaced what a week before the caucus.

Looks like you are confusing leadership skills with managerial skills.

I didn't criticize Trump on "racism", but in my opinion his dividing the country by race. There is a difference. And I like Whittle, and generally agree with him, including on that video.

If there is such a difference, why not elaborate on that? I think you may be crediting Trump with dividing the country by race when his candidacy is just making visible divisions that were already there. Trump has not created the army of youngsters that came because they were told they had "permiso" wherever they got the idea. Trump is not responsible for an explosion of H1-n and H1-B visas that allow big companies to displace skilled professionals with cheaper foreigners educated in American colleges in most cases. Trump is not created the "grievance studies" nonsense on American campuses, and not founding Black Lives Matter. Trump didn't blame the police in Ferguson, nor fabricate the fairytale of the poor little angelic Trayvon Martin, gunned down while he was harmlessly smoking dope, stealing things, making purple Drank, studying MMA maneuvers and trying to get a gun. Trump did not use discretion to simply not enforce immigration laws on the books as a form of defacto amnesty.


Capitalize on those racial divisions, Trump has. But create them? NOT A CHANCE.

 

[jbombelli]

Not really the same, but I recall Cold War propaganda explaining how to defect from places like East Germany and Russia.

This seems an odd tangent to follow, though. If we don't like what Mexico is doing, that is the hard job of diplomacy. The problem with that is that solid principles help provide consistency.

Telling people living an oppressed life in a socialist ****hole they're welcome to come here is not quite the same thing as telling OUR people how to go there in violation of their laws and take advantage of them, now is it?

 

[smcgee]

President Obama has issued 184 orders so far in his presidency. His predecessor, President George W. Bush, issued 291 orders over eight years, while President Bill Clinton had 364 executive orders during his two terms in office.

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2006	4.7	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.6	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.5	4.4	4.5	4.4
2007	4.6	4.5	4.4	4.5	4.4	4.6	4.7	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.7	5.0
2008	5.0	4.9	5.1	5.0	5.4	5.6	5.8	6.1	6.1	6.5	6.8	7.3
2009	7.8	8.3	8.7	9.0	9.4	9.5	9.5	9.6	9.8	10.0	9.9	9.9
2010	9.8	9.8	9.9	9.9	9.6	9.4	9.4	9.5	9.5	9.4	9.8	9.3
2011	9.1	9.0	9.0	9.1	9.0	9.1	9.0	9.0	9.0	8.8	8.6	8.5
2012	8.3	8.3	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.1	7.8	7.8	7.7	7.9
2013	8.0	7.7	7.5	7.6	7.5	7.5	7.3	7.3	7.3	7.2	6.9	6.7
2014	6.6	6.7	6.7	6.2	6.2	6.1	6.2	6.2	6.0	5.7	5.8	5.6
2015	5.7	5.5	5.5	5.4	5.5	5.3	5.3	5.1	5.1	5.0	5.0	5.0
2016	4.9	4.9	5.0

Unemployment rate note 8 years ago then current rate

yes the last eight years has been a living hell. Healthcare well no thanks to Republican Mitch McConnell people who can't afford it can now.
are Dems the saviors? In comparison to where we were yes Bush sent us to a fake war for revenge of Bush Sr. Which was a epic failure . If Trump gets in we will be in another one if not more within the first 100 days.

 

[jbombelli]

Well... I'm convinced. I'm voting Hillary.




Lololololololol

 

[phylodog]

President Obama has issued 184 orders so far in his presidency. His predecessor, President George W. Bush, issued 291 orders over eight years, while President Bill Clinton had 364 executive orders during his two terms in office.

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2006	4.7	4.8	4.7	4.7	4.6	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.5	4.4	4.5	4.4
2007	4.6	4.5	4.4	4.5	4.4	4.6	4.7	4.6	4.7	4.7	4.7	5.0
2008	5.0	4.9	5.1	5.0	5.4	5.6	5.8	6.1	6.1	6.5	6.8	7.3
2009	7.8	8.3	8.7	9.0	9.4	9.5	9.5	9.6	9.8	10.0	9.9	9.9
2010	9.8	9.8	9.9	9.9	9.6	9.4	9.4	9.5	9.5	9.4	9.8	9.3
2011	9.1	9.0	9.0	9.1	9.0	9.1	9.0	9.0	9.0	8.8	8.6	8.5
2012	8.3	8.3	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.1	7.8	7.8	7.7	7.9
2013	8.0	7.7	7.5	7.6	7.5	7.5	7.3	7.3	7.3	7.2	6.9	6.7
2014	6.6	6.7	6.7	6.2	6.2	6.1	6.2	6.2	6.0	5.7	5.8	5.6
2015	5.7	5.5	5.5	5.4	5.5	5.3	5.3	5.1	5.1	5.0	5.0	5.0
2016	4.9	4.9	5.0

Unemployment rate note 8 years ago then current rate

yes the last eight years has been a living hell. Healthcare well no thanks to Republican Mitch McConnell people who can't afford it can now.
are Dems the saviors? In comparison to where we were yes Bush sent us to a fake war for revenge of Bush Sr. Which was a epic failure . If Trump gets in we will be in another one if not more within the first 100 days.

Yeah, definitely saviors. I'll be sure to make sure my great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren don't forget that as they're slaving away, speaking Chinese in a sweat shop here in Indy trying to pay some of this off.

 

[Hohn]

Not that a bush-hater would care, but here are the actual facts of government spending and taxation under Bush:Heartland Musings: The Exoneration of George W. Bush

hint: tax cuts for the rich never happened, he didn't squander a surplus on war.

 

[Noday345]

Where are the real candidates is exactly right

 

[smcgee]

id like to see the chart or pie graph on all the Americans thats went bankrupt on Health Care bills versus countries that have health care and benefits ? its 70 million to zer0
Bush didn't squander a surplus on war?where exactly was it? The great Depression version 2.0? who was asleep when all that happened?
For the gentlemen great grandchildren to the 5th power that are working for China I hope the record shows the US started borrowing money the day Obama went into Office so the deficit started January 2008
Id like to get back on subject and say as everyone else already has said in the country, even his own mother, I would vote for Trump before another Bush thats for sure.
Let me clarify as saying I don't think Hilary is a good choice either but I know in theory I have more beliefs that are Democrat then Republican. Id rather vote other to be blatantly honest I think the whole system is screwed and neither party wants anything to change!

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The pamphlets give instructions for safely crossing the border using illegal entry means. Can you cite a source for the US publishing and distributing analogous pamphlets for US citizens to enter other countries illegally?

The pamphlets give instruction on how to stay safe if crossing the border illegally. It doesn't give instruction on how to cross the border illegally. I'd say the govt knows that their citizens are going to attempt to cross illegally and it wants them to be safe, not the same as sending them.

Not completely accurate. The bill was introduced by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_K._Simpson , a Republican. Though, the name of bill, Simpson-Mazzoli, the latter is a Democrat.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/senate-bill/1200

And it isn't clear that a lot more Republicans voted against it than Democrats. I'll have to dig further, but this article indicates that there was pretty staunch opposition by some Democrats.

HOUSE, BY 216-211, APPROVES ALIENS BILL AFTER RETAINING AMNESTY PLAN IN FINAL TEST - NYTimes.com

It is pointed out that many Republicans in Florida supported the bill (mostly due to Cuban support), and many in Texas opposed. I'm sure much of that support was based on "Mariel."

I stand corrected. Thank you and if I could rep you I would.

I think that's a distinction without much of a difference, like when the preacher says 'we must stop interpreting the Bible based on what we THINK it says and based on what it ACTUALLY say"-- is there a difference?


Looks like you are confusing leadership skills with managerial skills.


If there is such a difference, why not elaborate on that? I think you may be crediting Trump with dividing the country by race when his candidacy is just making visible divisions that were already there. Trump has not created the army of youngsters that came because they were told they had "permiso" wherever they got the idea. Trump is not responsible for an explosion of H1-n and H1-B visas that allow big companies to displace skilled professionals with cheaper foreigners educated in American colleges in most cases. Trump is not created the "grievance studies" nonsense on American campuses, and not founding Black Lives Matter. Trump didn't blame the police in Ferguson, nor fabricate the fairytale of the poor little angelic Trayvon Martin, gunned down while he was harmlessly smoking dope, stealing things, making purple Drank, studying MMA maneuvers and trying to get a gun. Trump did not use discretion to simply not enforce immigration laws on the books as a form of defacto amnesty.

Capitalize on those racial divisions, Trump has. But create them? NOT A CHANCE.

It's not a distinction without difference, one has followers because he is a leader, the other just has followers.

Managerial skills are part of leadership skills, a person can be a manager without leadership skills, a person cannot be a leader without managerial skills.

I never said he did any of those. Although what explosion of H1b visas are you talking about? The cap has been flat since 2004. And lower than it was between 99-03.
H1B Visa Total Cap Stats from 1990 to 2017, Trend Plot until 2017

He has exploited and inflamed those racial divisions. I never said he created them, just divided the country on them. Perhaps I should have said further divided the country?

 

[phylodog]

id like to see the chart or pie graph on all the Americans thats went bankrupt on Health Care bills versus countries that have health care and benefits ? its 70 million to zer0
Bush didn't squander a surplus on war?where exactly was it? The great Depression version 2.0? who was asleep when all that happened?
For the gentlemen great grandchildren to the 5th power that are working for China I hope the record shows the US started borrowing money the day Obama went into Office so the deficit started January 2008
Id like to get back on subject and say as everyone else already has said in the country, even his own mother, I would vote for Trump before another Bush thats for sure.
Let me clarify as saying I don't think Hilary is a good choice either but I know in theory I have more beliefs that are Democrat then Republican. Id rather vote other to be blatantly honest I think the whole system is screwed and neither party wants anything to change!

Now you want to get the thread back on track, because you don't like the way your comments were received.

Who gives a **** how many people go bankrupt due to "free" healthcare? No one said anything about that. The fact is that nothing is "free". Someone is paying for it and NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO FREE ANYTHING. It's wrong, period. If someone wants a service (healthcare) from someone else, they owe that person something in return. Expecting a third party to pay for it is fundamentally wrong, end of story. No amount of talking in circles bull**** will change that.

I never said the Government started borrowing money when Obama took office. I didn't say he was responsible for all of it. I just pointed out that he has damned near doubled it since taking office. The surprising thing for people like you is that he did that to pay for all of the "free" **** that people like you feel they are entitled to.

This is an adult forum where we tend to have adult conversations. If you plan to run into the room, throw a turd at the wall and not expect to get any on you as you attempt to leave you're going to have a frustrating time here. Your beliefs are in thin supply around these parts.