Trump's comments - NBC and Univision reaction
- Thread starter Bazza
- Start date
And don't forget the poor McCain being shown flying coach and being way behind. That "sob" story pushed him back into the limelight.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Illegal Immigration (to me) is the result of the problem, not the cause. If you eliminate welfare fraud -- and make people work for their "free money" -- everything changes..... i don't blame those who want to come here to make a better life....in fact I'm all for it. The problem now though, is that people who want to do harm to the country are coming across now.....with the others.....Without immigration, legal and illegal, we would be in the same straitjacket that Japan and Germany are in - shrinking, aging workforce and many unwilling to do the jobs the illegals/legals do. Just something to think about, other than rhetoric. This is a nation of immigrants - almost all of us. Shut it off entirely (or choke it down to the level of most politicians' favorite stump speeches), and IMO, we strangle. Flames invited...
My paranoia may be insanely high -- but the whole "Red Dawn" concept still seems more possible than ever......
McCain was probably going to win anyway. The Republican Party since 1960 - with the exceptions of 1964 and 2000 (when there was no "heir to the throne" running) - has traditionally nominated the early front-runner, whoever's "turn" it was to run. Eisenhower begat Nixon who begat Ford who begat Reagan who begat Bush who (along with Reagan) begat Dole, etc. Since McCain was the runner-up in 2000 and Cheney didn't run, it was McCain's "turn," just like it was Romney's "turn" in 2012 after his decent showing in 2008. The Democrats only nominate the early front-runner a little less than half the time. Just go ask Presidents LBJ (who "lost" NH in 1968 by winning it by only six points over McCarthy), Muskie, Hart, and Hillary Clinton how those polls work.
McCain also got lifted by the assassination of Pakistani PM Bhutto since none of the other Republicans running had any foreign policy experience at all while McCain had been in the Senate forever and had helped try to repair relations with Vietnam where he was a POW.
Btw - back when it was de rigeur to pick Clinton vs Giluiani in 2008, I offered an EARLY contrary opinion that got me laughed at but turned out to be more right than what all the highly paid experts were saying:
I picked Edwards, which was wrong, but note that my larger point was it would NOT be Hillary. Regarding the Republicans - at a time that McCain was considered a cooked goose - I picked McCain as the nominee. Two weeks before I wrote this, the highly respected pollster Gallup gave us a poll showing Giuliani 24 points ahead of second place McCain. McCain was third in October 2007 behind Giuliani and Fred Thompson while the very same Gallup poll said, "No other announced or potential Democratic candidate has come close to threatening Clinton’s front-runner status since the campaign began, including former Vice President Al Gore and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards." In that same poll, Clinton led Obama by THIRTY POINTS - less than three months from the actual voting in Iowa that began on January 3. At a time nobody gave him a chance, I wrote:
The Republicans have always nominated the early front-runner even if that front-runner was doomed (see Bob Dole, 1996)....But it will be McCain at this point.
I also correctly predicted on another board (now gone) that Obama and Huckabee would win Iowa - which was contrary to what everyone was saying early on. No, I'm NOT always right - but despite not having Nate Silver's smart pill machine or making a bundle like some of the prognosticators, I AM more right than they are.
And don't ask because right now I can't tell you. I CAN tell you that this is more difficult than ever because with some sixteen candidates splitting the vote - the most ever as far as I know - a truly odd result might happen when candidates A, B, and C split the same voters while E wins early contests solely due to the split. This is the kind of year a Pat Buchanan or David Duke COULD conceivably win the GOP nomination (this is part of why Jesse Jackson emerged as the runner-up in 1988 - the Democrats need to be thanking whatever they pray to that Hart and Biden both had to withdraw or it's entirely possible Jackson might well have won the nomination.....and polling that year was showing that if he did they would lose BOTH houses of Congress as well).
But the press DOES to a large degree FILTER the information through their preconceptions. My goodness, even liberals like Elizabeth Drew and the late Jack Germond acknowledged that the press CAN kill off a candidacy or keep it alive with how they interpret the results. Note the difference in these two statements:
a) "Senator Kerrey shoehorned his way into the picture with a resounding victory in neighboring South Dakota, presenting himself as a viable alternative to Governor Clinton and Senator Tsongas"
b) "Senator Kerrey proved himself nothing more than a regional candidate with an 'as expected' win in neighboring South Dakota. Polls, however, show that unlike Governor Clinton, he has no national recognition and is trailing badly in other states (unmentioned - all these "other states" are in Clinton's own region)."
I watched the election returns that night when Kerrey won South Dakota and it was B that was the spin job the reporters all gave both locally and nationally. I'm NOT saying Bob Kerrey was a better candidate than Bill Clinton because he wasn't - but I AM saying the perceptions are shaped by the media. If the press had picked several of the big states Hillary won in early 2008 as "more important," then she would have won even when Obama won 14 of 22 contests in one day.
Btw - don't get too overly worried about the 16 candidates in the Clown Bus. The first two races will knock it down to 2 or at most 3 candidates. It always happens because the money goes to who won the earliest contests. But here's some irony for you - the WORST thing that could happen for the GOP short-term is for Hillary to lose Iowa and NH. The LAST thing they need is to have to share equal billing in the races. This happened in 1988 to the Democrats when Bush finished third in Iowa behind Dole and Robertson. Long-term, the GOP would likely be helped if Bernie "The Socialist" Sanders won the nomination.
Then again - since Hillary has never done well in any COMPETITIVE race, I don't know - maybe Sanders is actually a better candidate.
And now back to The Hair Job.
One could likewise argue that legalized abortion contributed to the problem as well. I'm just saying.
Nothing you've said changes the actual demographics one iota. The Japanese are among the most xenophobic on Earth. Just look where it's gotten them. With a low resident birthrate, you have to have immigration, one way or the other. Or, you end up like Japan - and their situation is getting worse by the year...
I could probably immerse myself and buy in to America and it's culture and doubt I could the Japanese, it's not only about immigration but Americanizing and learning our way of life.
Trump is vilified for speaking (what he believes is) the truth. Hillary Clinton gets a pass for speaking what she knows is a lie.
Well he can say whatever he wants, but he shouldn't be surprised when companies stop doing business with him that don't agree with what he says.
I'm just pointing out that Japan has successfully completely stifled any immigration to amount to anything. The bets are on how soon it collapses their society completely...
We can say that all un-documented aliens are criminals. They have broken immigration laws at the very least. That being said I would like to see much less red tape and a more streamline way to legally extend their stay after a background check.
And when those businesses (like the majority of the major media outlets) make a point of putting such a leftist slant on everything they say to the point of it becoming an outright lie, then he probably neither needs nor wants their business.
The problem is that the latter is acceptable in politics but the former is not. This environment was not suddenly created by the Clintons or anyone else. My goodness, if SOCIETY has to exist on the foundation of truth, it would cease tomorrow. Imagine if businesses actually HAD to tell the truth about all their dealings (we have kids slaving for us in Nicaragua, we support apartheid in S Africa, etc) prior to getting found out by string pullers.
But we support it as well. If a candidate came out tomorrow and said, "The only way to balance the federal budget is to raise taxes on everyone and cut spending," how well do you think he would do? I'll give you a hint: Bruce Babbitt did that in 1988 and got 1% of the vote and was out after two primaries - and Ross Perot finished third in a three-man race saying the same thing in 1992.
That's why every election, the Republicans promise trickle down economics will work "this" time by lowering taxes and thus increasing investment and why Democrats promise they'll cut taxes on the middle class and make those rich suckers pay for it. Somebody tell me how it's working for either side in terms of actually reducing the deficit....
I guess it my lefty underwear from Macy's speaking.
Problem is Trump suffers from diarrhea of the mouth. I thought this was a known fact for a few decades now.
I have an image of Hillary Clinton hiding in the pant suit racks and jumping out and grabbing unsuspecting conservatives to drag them back to her lair.
