And I'm 1000% on board with this. I think you mistake my political misgivings about Trump as a person, for a liberal penchant. As so many have said, he's only been in office a week. I get that. Thus far he hasn't actually done anything as POTUS that offended my "win at all costs" sensibilities but he talked it and he has a history of doing it in his personal and professional life. So what would you suggest that we judge the guy by? He ran on his record in his personal and professional life. I don't like who is as a person or a professional. I think he has lied and cheated in his personal and professional life. I would greenlight virtually every EO he has penned thus far, but that still does not assuage my misgivings and concern about what's to come. which is how I phrased my initial statement.
I don't think it was Horn6721 that had the mistake. You were pretty cloudy on what you were trying to say.
These sound like reasonable ideas (i.e. fair and right) to me. What doesn't sound reasonable is allowing Mexico to not secure its border simply because it is benefitting from its lawbreaking citizens crossing our common border. They will pay for the wall, whether directly, which is unlikely due to domestic political pressure and Mexican machismo, or indirectly through lost jobs, tariffs, and loss of USAID funds, even if they don't like it. Mexico benefits by way of American companies relocating to their third world country to take advantage of low wages. Their citizens benefit from jobs US companies outsource to Mexico, and because the benefit to Mexico of American companies moving plants to Mexico outweighs the amount of funds illegals send from their U.S. employment back to Mexico. Also, the U.S. has leverage over Mexico, and almost every other country, because we are the consumer nation and other countries don't want to lose the U.S. as a market. They will bend to our will simply because doing so benefits them more than not doing so. Taking Iraqi oil is a no brainer. After defying the U.N. numerous times, violating no fly zones, killing Kurds with chemical weapons, violently oppressing more than half of their citizens, and previously invading Kuwait, using the "U.S. is a bully" argument is silly.
One study -- "Clinton received 800,000 votes from noncitizens" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/
ia Your points are spot on except maybe companies moving to mexico offer more benefit than remittances. IIRC remittances are first or second source of cash. over 22 Billion a year. Of course the illegals can do that since we taxpayers are footing the bill for much of their living here.
LOL! If I call you "worthless" and "less than human" and "dishonest" and question your profession for the express purpose of ginning up the crowd for campaign should I expect you to have a positive view of me? Trump has been leading the pitchfork rally then pleading ignorance. It's not just media though. It's Mexico, China, Democrats...well everyone but Trumpsters and Russia. He's a demagogue that chafes at anyone holding up the mirror to him.
Since when is it a country's obligation to secure its border in the outbound direction? That isn't a thing, as my daughter would say. By your logic, if the school bully beats up kids and steals their lunch money, the principal would then be entitled to steal the loot that the bully accumulated. Yes, Saddam was a bully, and he did lots of awful things to lots of people. But that doesn't make it okay for the US to steal his country's natural resources.
NJ You need a better analogy if you want to make a case for the US not taking some oil. A case For taking some of the oil or at least taking sone of the money from the sale of the oil is that it would be partial payment for the money We spent on their behalf. There is no amount of money to compensate for the blood of our warriors that was spilled.
Isn't pillaging against International laws that we helped create? I didn't think that was under debate. If we wanted an oil deal, we should have negotiated that with the Iraqi government we installed.
The obligation does exist, as does the idea that the Mexican government shouldn't encourage and assist illegals: http://cis.org/cadman/mexico-encourages-illegal-immigration-africans-us http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/w...-illegal-migrants-upsets-some-in-us.html?_r=0 http://www.fairus.org/issue/mexicos-defense-of-illegal-immigrants Concerning your school bully argument, I will refer you to the Federal Marshal's office, where you can buy forfeited assets formerly held by criminals: https://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/nsl.htm Here is a list by State: http://www.fear.org/stastat.html
Jury convicts Mexican national for voter fraud She voted in multiple counties Lied on the application saying she was a citizen Now Tarrant County thinks it might be a good idea to verify this claim on registration cards http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2017/02/09/...ntenced-to-8-years-in-prison-for-voter-fraud/
One thing they didn't clarify was her actual legal status. If she was a legal resident, then I could at least consider her excuse that she didn't know the difference between residency and citizenship. I'd have a hard time believing it, because I worked with and knew several legal residents, and they all knew the difference. Despite that, if she's borderline illiterate and gained her residency as a young child, then it's at least possible that she didn't know. Not saying I'd necessarily buy it, but I could at least kick it around. However, if she's an illegal immigrant, then she obviously would have known that she was neither a legal resident nor a citizen, and her entire excuse would very obviously be BS.
Nevada Secretary of State confirms that Non-US-Citizens voted in the 2016 Election https://thenevadaindependent.com/ar...-says-shes-confirmed-noncitizens-cast-ballots
Yes hasn't supplied any evidence to bolster the claim. Still, the question isn't whether any non-citizens voted but rather the volume. Nobody is claiming that fraud is impossible but the scale is in dispute. Remember, Trump claimed 3-5 million illegals voted without any shred of evidence.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ex-colorado-gop-head-charged-with-voter-fraud Classic! If the right wants to address voter fraud, I'll respect their efforts MUCH more once they agree to address the place where voter fraud is most likely to happen - on absentee voting. However, the elderly and the military vote absentee. So, there's nothing to see here...... They'd rather gin up the rubes with false claims of rampant voter fraud - 3-5 million illegals! F'n absurd. This is the real motivation: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...AimiXKXO9xHReAfbA&sig2=gPcDidXuy_Meyzqdjn3LCQ
It's not the real motivation for the vast majority of people out there. And where it is, it's a two-way street there. I don't know how to address the military absentee situation because I don't know enough details about how the system works, but I do know that already a certain percentage of military members who want to vote don't necessarily get their ballots in time and have no way of knowing if they ever got counted.
As a voter in an all-absentee vote process state, I love it. It's certainly most rife for fraud but in terms of ease of making it easy to vote it is the bees knees. Each of the parties have an army of volunteers that challenge signatures though which is frustrating. If your signature doesn't on the ballot isn't nearly an exact match with your registration, expect it to be challenged. My wife's ballot was challenged last year and it's a long drawn out process to get out of voter purgatory. Of course, the parties KNOW who to challenge based on party affiliation. I'm a registered Independent in a Republican leaning district so my vote wasn't challenged. My wife is a registered Democrat.
If you were right then these videos wouldn't be out there. They've ginned up the rubes with crap like "3-5 million illegals voted" and in doing so have created a false narrative. Turns out voter fraud is less likely than being struck by lightning. If their motives were true and honest we wouldn't see these quasi-absurd voter ID laws that are written. The NC law was blatantly biased and overturned by the courts. The Texas one was OK EXCEPT they passed the ID law and, in the process, didn't accept the amendments to make it more accommodating to actual get a state issued ID. Hypocrisy. They deny things like early voting that are aimed at getting more people to vote. Why is that? Because, in the recent past this has been a voting method of which Democratic populations have taken advantage. The logic against early voting should mirror that of absentee but it doesn't to its critics. Sad,
Doubtful. I haven't heard you beat a drum for Trump yet. More likely you'd be silent. The Harris County Democratic Party has howled each an every time an attempt is made to remove dead voters from the rolls. Even though the extremely rare voter, who would be wrongfully purged can easily register. And any attempt to check the roundup of homeless and otherwise unregistered voters on school buses and church buses that have been known to visit multiple voting locations have been met with cries of "RACISM!" and "VOTER SUPPRESSION!" No, the Democrats will never agree to any clean up of their illegal voters.
