Trump Alone at the Top

[....lybob]

And then they'll vote for the democratic populist...

 

And like journey says, it goes on and on and on and on....

 

Damn you for making me quote journey.

don't think a large armed protest in DC isn't a possibility many of these guys have been soaking up 2nd Amendment, tree of liberty narrative for decades - they don't listen to Alex Jones for entertainment

[Doc]

You live in a bubble as much as any left-elitist if you believe that - I live in 40 miles away from Buffalo now surrounded by Trump supporters and they 100% believe he's going to build a wall and deport illegals and bring back good manufacturing jobs and they are going to be very very very pissed if he doesn't.

 

Wait. I live in a bubble...if I think he won't build a wall?

[....lybob]

 

Wait. I live in a bubble...if I think he won't build a wall?

This part- "As long as he secures the border, people will be okay with not having a wall."

[keepthefaith]

The wall was approved in 2006, some construction was done until both parties didn't want to fund it. Trump can simply put it in the budget and yes I think everyone should expect that he will be determined to secure the border. Other methods likely used to secure the border as well where a wall not needed or appropriate. I'd expect that he will also move to deport a lot of illegal immigrants who have weak ties here or have committed crimes. Others probably allowed to stay.

Edited November 10, 2016 by keepthefaith

[Doc]

This part- "As long as he secures the border, people will be okay with not having a wall."

 

The central issue is securing the border, not a wall per se. I expect there will some deporation of illegals, namely criminals and those without children. As for job

[DC Tom]

The wall was approved in 2006, some construction was done until both parties didn't want to fund it. Trump can simply put it in the budget and yes I think everyone should expect that he will be determined to secure the border. Other methods likely used to secure the border as well where a wall not needed or appropriate. I'd expect that he will also move to deport a lot of illegal immigrants who have weak ties here or have committed crimes. Others probably allowed to stay.

 

He's explicitly said he'd look to deport illegal immigrants who have felony or multiple misdemeanor convictions. Which is as many as two million people.

 

And I'm actually okay with that. I think I've told the story before about the drunk uninsured illegal immigrant who wrecked my car in a hit-and-run. The cops refused to charge him because "we don't want to ruin his life." To which I responded "He committed multiple Class 1 misdemeanors, and could have killed someone. He's EXACTLY the kind of person who's life you want to ruin!"

[Prickly Pete]

 

The central issue is securing the border, not a wall per se. I expect there will some deporation of illegals, namely criminals and those without children. As for job

 

This is what I think as well. I can't see him sending out deportation squads, and breaking up families. In the past (before he was a candidate) he has made statements about the US needing to accommodate illegals, so I think he was just setting up a bargaining position..."everything".

 

Still it's hard to know what he is really going to pursue, and I have to admit I have lots of trepidation. It's important for him to make attempts to bring people together. My main worry is that Muslims will be persecuted by his more enthused (crazed) supporters.

[DC Tom]

 

This is what I think as well. I can't see him sending out deportation squads, and breaking up families. In the past (before he was a candidate) he has made statements about the US needing to accommodate illegals, so I think he was just setting up a bargaining position..."everything".

 

Still it's hard to know what he is really going to pursue, and I have to admit I have lots of trepidation. It's important for him to make attempts to bring people together. My main worry is that Muslims will be persecuted by his more enthused (crazed) supporters.

 

More than half the things he's credited with saying are taken horribly out of context anyway. His supposed "ban all Muslims" position is a great example: he wants to stop immigration from known terrorist countries until the background vetting process can itself be vetted. That's not actually "ban all Muslims." It's actually reasonable. I'm not sure I agree with it completely - I'm not sure it doesn't create a conflict with the requirements of due process, and it may be unfair to true refugees seeking asylum from truly dangerous situations. But it's reasonable, enough so to serve as a basis for discussion.

 

But no one wants "discussion." The rhetoric has been pushed so far to the extremes in this country that everything is black-and-white now: accepting refugees from Syria is somehow supporting terrorism; but checking their backgrounds is a complete ban on Muslims. Or gay marriage: it includes the right to demand that anyone you choose bake you a cake regardless of their feelings, and if they don't they want to put gays in concentration camps and chemically sterilize them. When the !@#$ did that become reasonable, and "I'm sorry, my beliefs won't allow me to participate in your wedding, but best of luck and I wish you all the happiness in the world" became raging homophobia?

 

The next four years are going to be awful, as everyone's gotten entrenched in their extreme, un-nuanced "my way or the highway" thinking over the previous eight years, and they are NOT giving it up.

[grinreaper]

More than half the things he's credited with saying are taken horribly out of context anyway. His supposed "ban all Muslims" position is a great example: he wants to stop immigration from known terrorist countries until the background vetting process can itself be vetted. That's not actually "ban all Muslims." It's actually reasonable. I'm not sure I agree with it completely - I'm not sure it doesn't create a conflict with the requirements of due process, and it may be unfair to true refugees seeking asylum from truly dangerous situations. But it's reasonable, enough so to serve as a basis for discussion.

 

But no one wants "discussion." The rhetoric has been pushed so far to the extremes in this country that everything is black-and-white now: accepting refugees from Syria is somehow supporting terrorism; but checking their backgrounds is a complete ban on Muslims. Or gay marriage: it includes the right to demand that anyone you choose bake you a cake regardless of their feelings, and if they don't they want to put gays in concentration camps and chemically sterilize them. When the !@#$ did that become reasonable, and "I'm sorry, my beliefs won't allow me to participate in your wedding, but best of luck and I wish you all the happiness in the world" became raging homophobia?

 

The next four years are going to be awful, as everyone's gotten entrenched in their extreme, un-nuanced "my way or the highway" thinking over the previous eight years, and they are NOT giving it up.

Hell, Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from entering the U.S. even if was just for a visit.

[snafu]

More than half the things he's credited with saying are taken horribly out of context anyway. His supposed "ban all Muslims" position is a great example: he wants to stop immigration from known terrorist countries until the background vetting process can itself be vetted. That's not actually "ban all Muslims." It's actually reasonable. I'm not sure I agree with it completely - I'm not sure it doesn't create a conflict with the requirements of due process, and it may be unfair to true refugees seeking asylum from truly dangerous situations. But it's reasonable, enough so to serve as a basis for discussion.

 

But no one wants "discussion." The rhetoric has been pushed so far to the extremes in this country that everything is black-and-white now: accepting refugees from Syria is somehow supporting terrorism; but checking their backgrounds is a complete ban on Muslims. Or gay marriage: it includes the right to demand that anyone you choose bake you a cake regardless of their feelings, and if they don't they want to put gays in concentration camps and chemically sterilize them. When the !@#$ did that become reasonable, and "I'm sorry, my beliefs won't allow me to participate in your wedding, but best of luck and I wish you all the happiness in the world" became raging homophobia?

 

The next four years are going to be awful, as everyone's gotten entrenched in their extreme, un-nuanced "my way or the highway" thinking over the previous eight years, and they are NOT giving it up.

 

One of his major flaws is his inability to communicate coherently. It permitted the democrats to seize on just about everything he said. It has helped to inflame everyone who's protesting now and who didn't take any time to parse his half-formed pronouncements.

[keepthefaith]

 

He's explicitly said he'd look to deport illegal immigrants who have felony or multiple misdemeanor convictions. Which is as many as two million people.

 

And I'm actually okay with that. I think I've told the story before about the drunk uninsured illegal immigrant who wrecked my car in a hit-and-run. The cops refused to charge him because "we don't want to ruin his life." To which I responded "He committed multiple Class 1 misdemeanors, and could have killed someone. He's EXACTLY the kind of person who's life you want to ruin!"

Yes, get those people the hell out of here.

Hell, Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from entering the U.S. even if was just for a visit.

Yes, a good decision at the time.

[grinreaper]

Yes, get those people the hell out of here.

 

Yes, a good decision at the time.

Just like it would be a good decision to hold up all immigration from terrorist havens until proper vetting can be done.

[Taro T]

One of his major flaws is his inability to communicate coherently. It permitted the democrats to seize on just about everything he said. It has helped to inflame everyone who's protesting now and who didn't take any time to parse his half-formed pronouncements.

True, they did seize on them. But they didn't capitalize on them. Unless you count gaining ~2 Senate seats (when the other guys had 10 more than you up for grabs), ~10 House seats & losing the Presidency, ~3 more Governorships,~ 3 more State Houses, & having the other party's nominee nominate at least 1 & possibly 3 SC Justices capitalizing.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Taro T

[Prickly Pete]

True, they did seize on them. But they didn't capitalize on them. Unless you count gaining ~2 Senate seats (when the other guys had 10 more than you up for grabs), ~10 House seats & losing the Presidency, ~3 more Governorships,~ 3 more State Houses, & having the other party's nominee nominate at least 1 & possibly 3 SC Justices capitalizing.

 

It's more like the media capitalized on them. I think the media has created much of the hysteria. I have a feeling that this might just be the way presidential elections are going to be, from here on out.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

 

 

[Nanker]

I think step one will be to tell the border agents and ICE and the Justice Department to DO YOUR FUC ING JOB!

That should go a long way in reestablishing the rule of law, and I don't have a problem with that.

[IDBillzFan]

I think step one will be to tell the border agents and ICE and the Justice Department to DO YOUR FUC ING JOB!

That should go a long way in reestablishing the rule of law, and I don't have a problem with that.

 

Seriously.

[B-Man]

FLASHBACK: SALENA ZITO:

 

The 70-year-old Republican nominee took his time walking from the green room toward the stage. He stopped to chat with the waiters, service workers, police officers, and other convention staffers facilitating the event. There were no selfies, no glad-handing for votes, no trailing television cameras. Out of view of the press, Trump warmly greets everyone he sees, asks how they are, and, when he can, asks for their names and what they do.

“I am blown away!” said one worker, an African American man who asked for anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak to the press. “The man I just saw there talking to people is nothing like what I’ve seen, day in and day out, in the news.”

 

 

 

 

 

Well, the news.

[Ozymandius]

[B-Man]

After Trump shockingly won Pennsylvania, we should remember that when Obama talked about “bitter clingers” back in 2008, he was talking about Pennsylvania.