General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary

Prepare for Trump to flip-flop. Link.

So much for the BS narrative that despite his faults (fiscally liberal, dumb on policy, colossal buffoon on foreign policy, acts like an *******, etc.), Trump will at least have resolve and principle on illegal immigration.

 

Like the Muslim Ban he'll say this is an "extension of my earlier policy" but may indeed be a flip flop. When called a flip flop by the media he'll call them mean names and question their integrity.

 

An adequate debunking for the HRC "health conspiracy": http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/22/politics/hillary-clinton-health-conspiracy-theory-explained/index.html

The best part about the story. Remember the "Diazepam injector"? It's a flashlight according to the secret service. Media, Secret Service, multiple Doctors, the DNC...who isn't part of this conspiracy?

 

You and Deez are wrong according to WaPo.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...trumps-official-plan-to-begin-with/?tid=sm_tw

 

That's comical. It may not have been part of his written plan, but it has certainly been part of his rhetoric. Let's put it this way. How many of Trump's supporters didn't think he supported deporting all or virtually all illegal immigrants? Probably very few. Being a hardliner on illegal immigration was the core of his appeal.

 

So Assange's attorney shows up dead
This time it was a train

 

Maybe it's semantics, but using his year-old immigration plan that WaPo linked, which states "return all criminal aliens to their home countries..." Isn't that virtually saying that any illegal immigrants should be deported to their home countries? Twisting it into "criminal means someone who has committed a crime OTHER than being an illegal immigrant" wouldn't hold up to the scrutiny that Trump or his supporters have been saying since Day One.

Since he didn't use the term "forced deportation" in his year-old campaign platform, maybe they're just being lenient on him. WaPo isn't known for its leniency on Trump, though.

 

The deportation thing has been done in the US before
Primarily successful, I guess you would have to conclude
I think it was under Eisenhower
In the first year (somewhere in the middle 1950s), the Feds deported around 1M people who were here illegally. It was all over the news. Once word of what was going down fully circulated, a large chunk of the remainder then simply went home. What began as the Fed Govt enforcement action then became voluntary self-deportation.
Sidenote - At that time, the Mexican Govt was actually in support since they (somehow) had a labor shortage of their own
I remember during the debates I kept thinking this program would come up but it never did. Maybe because the program had a non-PC name but todays standards?

 

Another historical reference I thought would come up during the debates is the Immigration Policy that existed from the 1920s until Ted Kennedy's (dreaded) revision in 1965. But it did not.

It was not quite total zero immigration, although it was for certain countries of origin. And there were severe quotas for others.

Can see the effects here

 

You really think trying to rally the nation behind "Operation Wetback" is a good idea for any party?

The humans rights violations committed during the operation were horrendous, regardless of how much enforcement of law was going on. It arguably cost hundreds of United States citizens their ability to stay in the United States, as they were born here but couldn't prove it. Thousands of Mexicans died on route to wherever the Mexican government was "relocating" them.

And, most of all, the operation encouraged American corporations who represented growers to recruit more illegal immigrants in the end. The bracero program was too bureaucratic and costly to avoid using illegals. Sure, there was a huge swell of people who fled to Mexico when they saw what was going down, but then the dust settled.

 

Nate Silver just tweeted a long piece on the LA Times poll. Basically he defended it as a good poll, but skewed toward Trump by 6 pts versus poll average. Said nothing wrong with it as the average takes into account of outliers. Plus, he says outliers are not wrong on occasion. I've maintained the true reading is in the middle between LA Time poll and the poll average (or roughly 3 pts) for the reasons previously given (anonymity and voter turnout methodology). Silver also said that polling this year is extremely difficult. Also, Trump does better on robocalls. Is that due to selection bias or anonymity? Only one way to know for sure!

 

The AP says OVER HALF of Hillary's meetings at the State Department while she was Sect of State were with Clinton Foundation Donors

But even the AP is still playing games since the list they used to make this determination did not include money and meetings with or from foreign state donors. And there was quite a bit if that going on. So the percentage is actually higher.

Basically, if you wanted to communicate with her, you had to first send her foundation some money.

(ps - which is not legal)

 

There is breathtaking new evidence of Hillary's health problems, found right here on the Hornfans advertisements:


You can clearly see the urinary catheter running down her leg, as well as the outline of a defibrillator vest around her waist. Plus, her wide-eyed expression belies a seizure, and the hinge at her elbow reveals that she had to have her arms amuptated as a result of a stroke.

 

I'm starting to believe that Hornfans is colluding with Trump. So many Trump ads. Clearly something nefarious is going on.

 

As should be obvious to almost anyone, that phrase did not invoke the same imagery in the 1950s that it does today. But, once again, you guys get tripped up over names and the race to be most and quickest offended, never getting to the merits of anything. It gets so tiresome.

There is not doubt enforcing immigration law creates hardship. But the same is true for many (most?) federal laws
-- In your opinion, does enforcement of federal criminal statutes rise to the level of "human rights violations?"
-- What about the enforcement of tax law? This may include the seizure of your home, business, bank account, wages. Or may even put you in prison. That's pretty harsh. Human Rights are involved. Who decides if its a Violation? You? Seems like you think you do. Can I appoint myself the same way you appointed yourself to make this determination?
-- Do you know anything about the enforcement of federal asset forfeiture laws? Those produce some incredibly harsh results. Some of the stories in this area of the law are unbelievable. But are they "Human Rights Violations?"
-- What about the human rights of the carrier of a deadly infectious disease? Something that is happening more and more (TB is back, so is the plague. The Plague!). Is denying them entry into the US a human rights violation? Do they have a right to enter this country as non-citizens? What about the forced quarantine of such a person?
-- What about federal eminent domain? Do you not care about that since "it's only property?"

You seem to be arguing that persons here illegally are entitled to be treated to a different, indeed better, standard than actual citizens. That these people deserve to be in a special class that exempts them from federal law. That they have certain "human rights" that supercede those rights accorded actual citizens by the Constitution. You do believe this, yes?

Anyway, back to the actual issue -- the bottom line for the purpose of Trump's proposal is that (1) it has happened before, in somewhat recent US history; (2) it worked; (3) after a one-year show of force, the majority of the remaining folks here illegally voluntarily self-deported. It seems like this could at least be a starting point for discussion, development of policy. But they will need to come up with a different name for it.

 

Apparently you will defend anything HRC does. Long sleeve wool coat in August? What is wrong with her? What is wrong with you?

 

Here is the quote from the AP mentioned above
As I said, they are downplaying it by excluding foreign state money
Still, for the AP, the bolded part is pretty strong

 

It is more than a little ironic that you want to fall back on actual medical tests, such as MRIs, Neurological Exams, and EEGs. The doctors who have done such tests give Clinton a clean bill of health.

Yes, putting any stock in the Pickle Jar Test would be stupid. But it would be (or in your case, is) equally stupid to put any stock in the opinions of TV doctors who have done nothing more than look at snippets of videos.

 

One more tidbit about the AP story on the recent release of an additional 15k HRC emails -- the story only covers *half* of HRC's tenure

Why?

Because the State Dept. has been stonewalling their release in court for three years, and still are today

What are the chances State releases the remaining records before November?

 

It is more than a little ironic that you would believe what the Clintons say on this issue. Or any issue. How can you ever tell when they are being honest?

 

Here's Donald Trump wearing a long-sleeved wool coat and a heavy head covering, in AUGUST. He must be dying of something.

 

You're parsing other federal laws with immigration ones. They're all different situations. Operation Wetback literally took property away from individuals not because the law required their property to be taken away, but because picking them up and shipping them off didn't afford them the time or ability to take their property with them. You also didn't address the fact that actual U.S. citizens were deported. For no real reason other than that they worked near illegal immigrants and didn't have birth certificates on them.

Violating tax laws has specific consequences listed with the law. Federal forfeiture means that the state takes property that's involved in violating the law. Violating immigration laws doesn't mean you forfeit all the possessions you have while living here illegally.

Here's what the link says:
"Individuals and organizations involved in the myriad of criminal conduct for which U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) has been charged with combating are often times involved in such activity for one reason only – commercial advantage and/or financial gain – in other words, to make money. Whether utilized in the fight against human smuggling; narcotics, weapons, or contraband smuggling; exportation of illegal arms or dual-use equipment that may threaten national security; financial crimes, such as money laundering, commercial fraud and intellectual property rights violations; child pornography and exploitation; identity and benefits fraud; or human rights violations, asset forfeiture has proven to be a powerful tool in combating criminal activity and other violations that threaten national security."

You're really going to compare that to forfeiting earned income at less than a minimum wage for farm workers?

I said that actual citizens were deported, but whatever. You state that the harms of enforcing Operation Wetback were acceptable to those involved, even though they (mostly) weren't citizens. Agree to disagree. I think that citizens violating any law should be subject to the provisions listed therein. I don't think that means you allow people to die because it's easier than enforcing existing laws in humane ways or actually writing new laws to combat the issue.

1. is correct
2. is incorrect, as public denunciation of the operation is what ended it before it accomplished its goal of getting rid of illegal immigrants.
3. they came back

The policy that DID develop is a very expensive, permanent residency of Border Patrol that is only mildly effective at combating illegal immigration and drug smuggling today. Making a new PC name for it isn't going to change that it's infinitely more improbable that this would/could happen in the U.S. again.

 

All these millions of dollars forcibly handed over to the Clintons, to allow access to the Sect of State is "more than a little ironic" in contrast to lefties' position on Citizens United.

On one side, we have rich folk who "donated" money to HRC's foundation to get access to her.

On the other, we have the Gov't in Citizens United saying "You CANNOT spend money if you're going to spend it in an effort to criticize Hillary Clinton"

It is at least intellectually honest to say "Hillary shouldn't grant access based on 'donations' to her" while at the same time saying "we can spend money to criticize her"

But to defend Hillary on this pay-for-play stuff while damning Citizens United is to say "money in politics is only OK when it goes through powerful hands"

 

Which is consistent with Trumps' position as I understand it.
He would implement a legal procedure for (the non-violent criminals to) return for work purposes for those willing to comply with the law.

 

100% is unlikely. But some lesser percent is not.

There is nothing wrong with having the Border Patrol mostly on the border. Where would you rather have them?

 

It's about the rule of law. Which is one of the major ideas and facets of the United States that has distinguished it from the majority of all other countries, regimes, kingdoms, dictatorships, fiefdoms and tribes in the history of all humanity.

If whichever party is in control of the federal government is going to imperially chose who it will enforce the laws against and who it will not, the entire culture will eventually break down. Why pay and file your taxes (the income tax system in the US is voluntary)? Why show up for jury duty (or once empaneled, why honor your oath)? Why do anything they tell you to do? (that is modern Greece btw)

You guys seems so willing to throw all that away. No one studies history any more.

 

This AP story smoked out a long response -- keep in mind that the AP has not seen even half of this trove. In addition, State is still in fed court, every day, with a large team of attorneys and staff fighting their full release (they said they needed 10 years, I kid not). Their primary defense being that they "lack the resources" to complete the release. Fed judges general, do not care for this lame excuse.

 

Another poll with similar results of LA Times poll, but also similar methodology.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016...ump-hold-steady-in-virtual-tie/4241471961806/