Jump to content


david wild

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, david wild said:

We should all go on welfare, then let them see who will pay the bills 

Afraid as a Christian, Working American who respects the values the country was founded on, owes no one, pays my share of taxes, takes only what I earned, respects the police, lives with in my means and is a proud Combat Veteran, I don't meet the criteria to be a Gimmie. 

Edited by 41chevy
  • Like 1


 “Life’s journey is not to arrive at the grave safely, in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting ‘Holy shit, what a ride!’


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Wall Street Journal  /  August 21, 2016

Donald Trump’s campaign suggested Sunday that the Republican presidential candidate is prepared to soften his stance on immigration.

Trump has made a tough stand on immigration a signature issue of his campaign, pledging among other things to create a “deportation force” to rapidly remove some of the country’s estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants.

On Sunday, his new campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, dialed back on that pledge, suggesting the deportation force might not be set up after all. Asked Trump would mobilize this deportation force in the White House, Conway responded: “To be determined.”

She added: “What he supports is to ensure that we respect the law. He will lay out the specifics of that plan.”

Trump tried this past week to reach out to minority groups, in part by holding a meeting on Saturday with his Hispanic Advisory Council at Trump Tower in New York. Trump has angered many Hispanic leaders during the campaign, due to his comments about Hispanic immigrants being “rapists” and his plan to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

The meeting produced a tangle of reports that indicated Trump told the gathering that he was open to changing his view.

Any retreat on immigration policies, which have been a signature issue for Trump, could be politically risky.

On the one hand, GOP leaders have urged the campaign to soften its rhetoric in an attempt to improve Trump’s poor standing with the rapidly growing universe of Hispanic voters, who will make up an estimated 12% of eligible voters this year.

But Trump’s fervent backers are counting on a continued tough line on immigration, including a promise to build a wall to keep immigrants from Mexico and Central America out of the U.S.

Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, a key Trump adviser, was asked on Sunday whether the candidate still planned to quickly deport the 11 million people if he won the White House. He was noncommittal.

“What I’m certain about is that he did not make a firm commitment yesterday, or the meeting the other day, about what he will do with that,” Sessions said. “But he did listen, and he’s talking about it.”

Sessions emphasized that Trump isn’t backing off his plan for “extreme vetting,” or ideological assessments, for those coming into the U.S.

“The American people clearly support the idea that if you can’t vet somebody from a dangerous area of the globe, they should not be brought into the U.S.,” he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my thoughts but Trump and the whole Republican party better get their heads out of their ass or this country is going to be in the sh*ter for a long time. I don't want to even think of that b*tch being in the White House.The last thing that that no good son of a b*tch we have now is going to do before he leaves office is to give her a pardon. Again just my thoughts.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump calls for special prosecutor to investigate Clinton Foundation

Reuters  /  August 22, 2016
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump urged the Justice Department on Monday to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate if donors to the Clinton Foundation got special treatment from the State Department when it was run by his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.

Trump made the appeal at a rally before thousands of cheering supporters in Akron, Ohio, as he tries to rebound from a slide in national opinion polls with little more than two months to go until the Nov. 8 election.

Trump accused former President Bill Clinton and his wife of turning the Clinton Foundation charity into a "pay-for-play" scheme in which wealthy donors, foreign and domestic, got favors from the State Department during Hillary Clinton's 2009-2013 tenure as the country's top diplomat.

Trump faulted both the Justice Department and FBI for not indicting Clinton over her use of a private email server as secretary of state. FBI Director James Comey cited her careless handling of classified emails but opted not to prosecutor her.

"The Justice Department is required to appoint a special prosecutor because it has proved to be, sadly, a political arm of the White House," Trump said. "Nobody has ever seen anything like it before."

Trump's appeal came the same day a conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch, released 725 pages of State Department documents, including some it said were examples of preferential treatment provided to donors at the request of former Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band.

Trump's call for an independent investigation followed an announcement by the Clinton Foundation that it would no longer accept foreign donations should Clinton be elected president.

The Clinton campaign fired back at Trump, saying the foundation had already laid out "the unprecedented steps the charity will take if Hillary Clinton becomes president."

Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta said in a statement that Trump "needs to come clean with voters about his complex network" of businesses that are in debt to big banks, including the state-owned Bank of China, after a New York Times report on the subject.

"Donald Trump should stop hiding behind fake excuses and release his tax returns and immediately disclose the full extent of his business interests," Podesta said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump’s Empire: A Maze of Debts and Opaque Ties

The New York Times  /  August 20, 2016

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump has sold himself as a businessman who has made billions of dollars and is beholden to no one.

But an investigation by The New York Times into the financial maze of Trump’s real estate holdings in the United States reveals that companies he owns have at least $650 million in debt — twice the amount than can be gleaned from public filings he has made as part of his bid for the White House. The Times’s inquiry also found that Trump’s fortunes depend deeply on a wide array of financial backers, including one he has cited in attacks during his campaign.

For example, an office building on Avenue of the Americas in Manhattan, of which Trump is part owner, carries a $950 million loan. Among the lenders: the Bank of China, one of the largest banks in a country that Trump has railed against as an economic foe of the United States, and Goldman Sachs, a financial institution he has said controls Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, after it paid her $675,000 in speaking fees.

Real estate projects often involve complex ownership and mortgage structures. And given Trump’s long real estate career in the United States and abroad, as well as his claim that his personal wealth exceeds $10 billion, it is safe to say that no previous major party presidential nominee has had finances nearly as complicated.

As president, Trump would have substantial sway over monetary and tax policy, as well as the power to make appointments that would directly affect his own financial empire. He would also wield influence over legislative issues that could have a significant impact on his net worth, and would have official dealings with countries in which he has business interests.

Yet The Times’s examination underscored how much of Trump’s business remains shrouded in mystery. He has declined to disclose his tax returns or allow an independent valuation of his assets.

Earlier in the campaign, Trump submitted a 104-page federal financial disclosure form. It said his businesses owed at least $315 million to a relatively small group of lenders and listed ties to more than 500 limited liability companies. Though he answered the questions, the form appears to have been designed for candidates with simpler finances than his, and did not require disclosure of portions of his business activities.

Beyond finding that companies owned by Trump had debts of at least $650 million, The Times discovered that a substantial portion of his wealth is tied up in three passive partnerships that owe an additional $2 billion to a string of lenders, including those that hold the loan on the Avenue of the Americas building. If those loans were to go into default, Trump would not be held liable, the Trump Organization said. The value of his investments, however, would certainly sink.

Trump has said that if he were elected president, his children would be likely to run his company. Many presidents, to avoid any appearance of a conflict, have placed their holdings in blind trusts, which typically involves selling the original asset, and replacing it with different assets unknown to the seller.

Trump’s children seem unlikely to pursue that option.

Richard W. Painter, a professor of law at the University of Minnesota and, from 2005 to 2007, the chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, compared Trump to Henry M. Paulson Jr., a former chief executive of Goldman Sachs whom Bush appointed as Treasury secretary.

Professor Painter advised Paulson on his decision to sell his Goldman Sachs shares, saying it was clear that Paulson could not simply have placed that stock in trust and pretended it did not exist.

If Trump were to use a blind trust, the professor said, it would be “like putting a gold watch in a box and pretending you don’t know it is in there.”

‘We Overdisclosed’

“I am the king of debt,” Trump once said on CNN. “I love debt.” But in his career, debt has sometimes gotten the better of him, leading to at least four business bankruptcies.

He is, however, quick to stress that these days his companies have very little debt.

Trump indicated in the financial disclosure form he filed in connection with this campaign that he was worth at least $1.5 billion, and has said publicly that the figure is actually greater than $10 billion. Recent estimates by Forbes and Fortune magazines and Bloomberg have put his worth at less than $5 billion.

To gain a better understanding of Trump’s holdings and debt, The Times engaged RedVision Systems, a national property information firm, to search publicly available data on more than 30 properties in the United States. The Times identified these assets through Federal Election Commission filings, information provided by the Trump Organization and records, such as filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The search covered thousands of pages of public information, including loan documents, land leases and property deeds. It concentrated on Trump’s commercial holdings, including office towers, golf courses, a vineyard in Virginia and even an industrial building in South Carolina that he ended up with after a troubled business venture involving Donald Trump Jr. The inquiry also examined some of Trump’s residential properties, including his penthouse apartment on Fifth Avenue and a house he owns in Beverly Hills, Calif. The examination did not include Trump’s dealings outside the United States.

That Trump seems to have so much less debt on his disclosure form than what The Times found is not his fault, but rather a function of what the form asks candidates to list and how.

The form, released by the Federal Election Commission, asks that candidates list assets and debts not in precise numbers, but in ranges that top out at $50 million — appropriate for most candidates, but not for Trump. Through its examination, The Times was able to discern the amount of debt taken out on each property, and its ownership structure.

At 40 Wall Street in Manhattan, a limited liability company, or L.L.C., controlled by Trump holds the ground lease — the lease for the land on which the building stands. In 2015, Trump borrowed $160 million from Ladder Capital, a small New York firm, using that long-term lease as collateral. On his financial disclosure form that debt is listed as valued at more than $50 million.

Allen Weisselberg, chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, said that Trump could have left the liability section on the form blank, because federal law requires that presidential candidates disclose personal liabilities, not corporate debt. Trump, he said, has no personal debt.

“We overdisclosed,” Weisselberg said, explaining that it was decided that when a Trump company owned 100 percent of a property, all of the associated debt would be disclosed, something that he said went beyond what the law required.

Filing Taken at ‘Face Value’

For properties where a Trump company owned less than 100 percent of a building, Weisselberg said, those debts were not disclosed.

Trump, for example, has a 50 percent stake in the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas. In 2010, the company that owns the hotel refinanced a $190 million loan, according to Real Capital Analytics, a commercial real estate data and analytics firm.

Weisselberg said that a Trump entity was responsible for half the debt, and that all but $6.4 million of the loan had been paid off.

The Times found three other instances in which Trump had an ownership interest in a building but did not disclose the debt associated with it. In all three cases, Trump had passive investments in limited liability companies that had borrowed significant amounts of money.

One of these investments involves an office tower at 1290 Avenue of Americas, near Rockefeller Center. In a typically complex deal, loan documents show that four lenders — German American Capital, a subsidiary of Deutsche Bank; UBS Real Estate Securities; Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company; and Bank of China — agreed in November 2012 to lend $950 million to the three companies that own the building. Those companies, obscurely named HWA 1290 III LLC, HWA 1290 IV LLC and HWA 1290 V LLC, are owned by three other companies in which Trump has stakes.

Ultimately, through his investments, Trump is a 30 percent owner of the building, records show. Vornado Realty Trust owns the other 70 percent and is the controlling partner.

A similar ownership structure is in place at 555 California Street in San Francisco, formerly the Bank of America Center. There, Pacific Life Insurance Company and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company lent $600 million in 2011 to a limited liability company of which Vornado owns 70 percent and Trump owns 30 percent.

Green Street Advisors, a real estate research firm, estimates the combined value of the two buildings to be about $3.7 billion.

On a smaller scale, Trump also has a 4 percent partnership interest in a company that has an interest in a large Brooklyn housing complex, and owes roughly $410 million to Wells Fargo, according to Bloomberg data.

The full terms of Trump’s limited partnerships are not known. The current value of the loans connected to them is roughly $1.95 billion, according to various public documents.

Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s chief financial officer, said that neither Trump nor the company were responsible for the debt associated with the limited partnerships.

Still, as with all of the properties in which Trump holds an interest, the value of the buildings as well as the terms and magnitude of their debt could have a major impact on his personal fortune.

Trump, Weisselberg added, was liable for a “small percentage of the corporate debt” listed on the federal filing but would not elaborate.

Other instances in which Trump could be personally responsible can be found in public filings. He guaranteed as much as $26 million for the loan taken out against his land lease at 40 Wall Street, money the lender could take if certain things went wrong.

The United States Office of Government Ethics, which reviewed Trump’s financial filing before the F.E.C. released it, said it does not comment on submissions by individual candidates.

The agency’s procedures for staff members reviewing presidential submissions, a copy of which was obtained by The Times through a Freedom of Information Act request, say the Office of Government Ethics does not audit reports for accuracy.

“Disclosures are to be taken at ‘face value’ as correct, unless there is a patent omission or ambiguity or the official has independent knowledge of matters outside the report,” the procedures say.

A Web of Investments

Tracing the ownership of many of Trump’s buildings can be a complicated task. Sometimes he owns a building and the land underneath it; sometimes, he holds a partial interest or just the commercial portion of a property.

And in some cases, the identities of his business partners are obscured behind limited liability companies — raising the prospect of a president with unknown business ties.

At 40 Wall Street, Trump does not own even a sliver of the actual land; his long-term ground lease gives him the right to improve and manage the building. The land is owned by two limited liability companies; Trump pays the two entities a total of $1.6 million a year for the ground lease, according to documents filed with the S.E.C.

The majority owner, 40 Wall Street Holdings Corporation, owns 80 percent of the land; New Scandic Wall Limited Partnership owns the rest, according to public documents. New Scandic Wall Limited Partnership’s chief executive is Joachim Ferdinand von Grumme-Douglas, a businessman based in Europe, according to these documents.

The people behind 40 Wall Street Holdings are harder to identify. For years, Germany’s Hinneberg family, which made its fortune in the shipping industry, controlled the property through a company called 40 Wall Limited Partnership. In late 2014, their interest in the land was transferred to a new company, 40 Wall Street Holdings. The Times was not able to identify the owner or owners of this company, and the Trump Organization declined to comment.

Trump has long-term ground leases on several other properties, including a golf course in New York’s Hudson Valley and retail space in Midtown Manhattan. Private owners are also behind these leases, their identities sometimes obscured by L.L.C.s.

Trump’s status in these situations is indicated by the word tenant, which is listed under his signature on many of the relevant documents.

Trump also holds a ground lease on the almost-completed Trump International Hotel in the Old Post Office building in Washington, a few blocks from the White House. The federal government, which owns the land, gave a 60-year lease to Trump Old Post Office, a limited liability company controlled by Trump and members of his family. In return, the government receives a minimum of $3 million a year from the company.

Weisselberg said that despite his holdings, Trump should not be held to the same standards that might apply to the heads of companies in highly regulated industries.

“If you take away all the fancy stuff and so on and so forth, and the five-star ratings, you are basically down to a closely held family-run business that is fundamentally different from IBM or Exxon,” Weisselberg said, quoting from an email he had received from Donald F. McGahn, a lawyer and former chairman of the F.E.C. who advised Trump on his federal filing. McGahn did not return calls for comment.

Others disagree. Trump’s opaque portfolio of business ties makes him potentially vulnerable to the demands of banks, and to business people in the United States and abroad, said Professor Painter, the former chief White House ethics lawyer.

“The success of his empire depends on an ability to get credit, to get loans extended to his business entities,” he said. “And we simply don’t know a lot about his financial dealings, here or around the world.”

Related reading - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/20/us/elections/donald-trump-owns-and-owes-debt-properties.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prospect of Trump win threatens to put US Asian pivot in a spin

The Financial Times  /  August 23, 2016

Asia faces a redrawing of the geopolitical order if Republican Donald Trump becomes US president — a prospect that scares Washington’s allies while handing a gift to China, its principal rival.

Tokyo and Seoul braced for change after the US elections, with some in the region fearing that even a Hillary Clinton win could herald unwelcome shifts. That includes bigger defence bills and the likely demise of President Barack Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which pointedly excludes China.

But it is a Trump presidency, which would herald a strong new strain of isolationist politics, that stands to wreak more damage over Asia, a continent of emerging superpowers such as China, home to more than half the world’s population and target of Obama’s Asian “pivot”.

A group of Republican foreign policy experts sounded the alarm last week. “We especially fear a Trump presidency’s impact on America’s future in Asia where China’s influence in the region, now the global economy’s centre of gravity, grows apace with its power,” they wrote.

“Should Trump become president and put his nostrums into practice, Asia’s response will be prompt and epochal,” the Republican advisers added. “Asia’s big or small countries will be forced to tilt towards...the Chinese. Some of them may move quickly to seek security in a new proliferation of nuclear weapons.”

Chinese nationalists now see China usurping the US as the pre-eminent power in the region in less than a decade, should Trump win the election and follow through on his “you pay up or we pull out” ultimatum to Seoul and Tokyo.

“If Trump distances the US from its allies, particularly Japan, objectively that can be a good thing for China’s strategic position,” says Shi Yinhong, an international affairs specialist at Renmin University in Beijing.

Beijing has recently chafed at the Obama administration’s endorsement of an international tribunal ruling that dismissed almost all of its expansive maritime claims in the South China Sea — and the deployment of a missile defence system that Washington and Seoul say is aimed at defending South Korea from North Korea, not Beijing.

Kuni Miyake, a former Japanese diplomat and expert on the Japan-US security treaty, says that “the dark side has awakened in the US” — a reference to blue-collar and middle-class angst about globalisation, inequality and immigration. These forces have produced a strong strand of “neo-isolationism” in the US of a type that the Japanese find especially troubling.

“Whether Trump is elected or not, this dark side will continue to run in US politics and could make it more inward-looking,” he says. “That could raise the incentives for a US president to request additional burden-sharing on security — not only from Japan but [also] South Korea and even Nato allies.”

Kim Ji-yoon at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies in Seoul agrees that “whoever becomes president, it is inevitable that South Korea will have to bear more costs to sustain the [US] alliance”.

In China the ruling Communist party has also learnt over the years that US presidential candidates tend to say one thing during an election campaign and do the opposite after they are in the Oval Office.

Campaigning for the White House just three years after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, Mrs Clinton’s husband railed against the “butchers of Beijing”. But by the end of his second term Bill Clinton had helped lay the foundations for China’s rise as an economic and military power by agreeing to its accession to the World Trade Organisation.

Prof Shi at Renmin University notes that Mr Trump and Mrs Clinton are likely to take tougher stances than the Obama administration on territorial issues in the South China Sea — something US allies in the region would welcome — but adopt more protectionist trade policies.

Their stance on trade is likely to cause short-term problems for Beijing but has already delivered at least one windfall — the likely demise of the TPP, the economic complement to Obama’s military pivot towards the region.

Both Mr Trump and Mrs Clinton have expressed strong opposition to the TPP, which Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong calls a “litmus test of [US] credibility and seriousness of purpose” in the Asia-Pacific region.

Asian analysts also generally believe that the US government’s institutional checks and balances will grant at least a short-term buffer against any dramatic realignment of regional power.

“Even with Trump’s unpredictability and the power of the presidency, the current system of alliances wouldn’t be shaken by him alone,” says Min Jeong-hun at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security in Seoul. “Congress, his cabinet and public opinion are all likely to play an important role in [regional] diplomacy.”

Xie Tao, a US expert at Beijing Foreign Studies University, agrees that a sudden withdrawal of US military forces from South Korea and Japan is a “fantasy”. “If he really does that, half a century’s work by the US in Asia would vanish like smoke and ashes,” Prof Xie said. “Congress and all sorts of interest groups would strongly oppose it.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump: inner cities run by Democrats are more dangerous than war zones

The Guardian  /  August 22, 2016

Donald Trump veered off the teleprompter on Monday night to claim that “inner cities run by the Democrats” were more dangerous than countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Republican nominee was meant to be delivering a scripted speech calling for Hillary Clinton be investigated by a special prosecutor. However, once again he veered off message in an attempt to appeal to minority voters in apocalyptic terms.

“You can go to war zones in countries that we are fighting and it is safer than living in some of our inner cities that are run by the Democrats,” Trump said. The Republican nominee also promised if elected, “we’ll get rid of the crime. You’ll be able to walk down the street without getting shot. Now, you walk down the street, you get shot.”

Trump has made increased appeals for support from African Americans in recent days. Despite that, a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed Trump receiving the support of only 1% of African American voters, a historically low total. The poll did have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5%.

Trump has repeatedly argued that African American voters should support him in the past week, saying: “What have you got to lose?”

In contrast, Trump has railed against what he called “the bigotry of Hillary Clinton, who sees people of color only as votes and not as human beings worthy of a better future”.

The intended focus of the Republican nominee’s message on Monday was his call for a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton’s leadership of the state department. Trump claimed that the FBI and Department of Justice could not be trusted to investigate “Hillary Clinton’s crimes”. The FBI in July decided not to pursue criminal charges against Clinton for her use of an unsecured private email server while secretary of state. However, in doing so, FBI Director James Comey rebuked Clinton for the “extremely careless” way in which she handled her emails.

In the speech, Trump also said he was “fighting for peaceful regime change in our country” and warned gravely of potential election fraud. “You got to go out and watch. You know what I’m talking about.” Trump has long made unsubstantiated claims about “a rigged election” and warned of in-person voter fraud recently at a campaign stop in Pennsylvania. However, an exhaustive investigation of in-person voter fraud in the United States found only 31 cases since 2000 out of more than 1 billion ballots cast.

Trump spoke in the blue collar city of Akron, Ohio. The Buckeye State has 18 electoral votes, and no Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio. According to data complied by Real Clear Politics, Clinton has not trailed in a single statewide poll of Ohio since April. However, despite these sagging poll numbers and cryptic warnings about election fraud, Trump was still confident of victory: “I just get the feeling that we’re going to win in a landslide.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump vows 'fair, but firm' approach to illegal immigration

Associated Press  /  August 22, 2016

Republican Donald Trump promised Monday to be "fair, but firm" toward the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally, a shift in tone that raised questions on whether he's backtracking from previous pledges to push for mass deportations.

The billionaire businessman, whose hard-line approach to immigration and fierce rhetoric propelled him to the GOP presidential nomination, insisted that he's not "flip-flopping" on the divisive issue as he works to broaden his support two-and-a-half months before the general election.

But in a meeting with Hispanic activists Saturday, Trump indicated he was open to considering allowing those who have not committed crimes, beyond their immigration offenses, to obtain some form of legal status - though attendees stressed Trump has yet to make up his mind.

[Illegal immigrants committed a crime when they entered the United States......illegally. So here is Trump indicating that he will grant amnesty to criminals who have not committed an “additional” crime while illegally living in the United States. We've already given amnesty to illegal immigrants on two big occasions in my lifetime, rather than stand by our immigration laws. Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants in 1986, and George H.W. Bush likewise to 1.5 million in 1990. Continuing down the wrong path, Obama's executive order would allow 5 million more illegal immigrants to laugh at our enforcement of immigration law and stay in the United States.]

"The impression I got was that the campaign is working on substantive policy to help the undocumented immigrants that are here, including some type of status so they would not be deported," said Pastor Mario Bramnick, president of the Hispanic Israel Leadership Coalition, who was in attendance.

[Note how the phrase “illegal immigrant” continues to be erased, as if it never existed, and replaced with the far gentler phrase “undocumented immigrant”. Illegal immigrant, which is exactly what these people are, correctly implies that they are criminals. However, undocumented immigrant, which has no criminal implication, sounds like nothing more than a library book misplaced onto the wrong shelf.]

Any walk-back would mark a dramatic reversal for Trump. During the GOP primary, Trump vowed to use a "deportation force" to round up and deport the millions of people living in the country illegally - a proposal that excited many of his core supporters, but alienated Hispanic voters who could be pivotal in key states.

Trump said in an interview with "Fox & Friends" on Monday that he was "working with a lot of people in the Hispanic community to try and come up with an answer."

"We want to come up with a really fair, but firm answer. It has to be very firm. But we want to come up with something fair," he said.

Later, he told Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, "I just want to follow the law."

"The first thing we're gonna do, if and when I win, is we're gonna get rid of all of the bad ones. We've got gang members, we have killers, we have a lot of bad people that have to get out of this country. We're gonna get them out," he said.

"As far as everybody else, we're going to go through the process," he said, citing the policies of President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush as examples.

Asked whether Trump's plan still included a deportation force, his new campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, said Sunday it was "to be determined."

"Even Sen. Jeff Sessions," a hard-liner on immigration, "he doesn't deport 11 million people in his plan," Conway said on CNBC Monday.

Trump had been scheduled to deliver a speech on the topic Thursday in Colorado, but has postponed it.

There have been signs for weeks now that Trump was shifting course. Hispanic business and religious leaders who would like to see Trump move in a more inclusive direction have reported closed-door conversations with Trump in which they say he has signaled possibly embracing a less punitive immigration policy that focuses on "compassion" along with the rule of law.

At last month's GOP convention, the Republican National Committee's director of Hispanic communications, Helen Aguirre Ferre, told reporters at a Spanish-language briefing that Trump had already said he "will not do massive deportations" - despite the fact that Trump had never said so publicly.

Instead, Aguirre Ferre said, "he will focus on removing the violent undocumented who have criminal records and live in the country."

Indeed, Trump's first television ad of the general election specifically singles out illegal immigrants with criminal records, claiming that, if Clinton is elected, "Illegal immigrants convicted of committing crimes get to stay."

Trump's campaign has pushed back on the notion that he's reversing course. "Mr. Trump said nothing today that he hasn't said many times before, including in his convention speech," rapid response director Steven Cheung said after the meeting.

At a rally in Akron, Ohio, Monday evening, many Trump supporters seemed unfazed by Trump's potential shift.

"Mr. Trump is a smart man who uses common sense," said Jennifer Carter, a small business owner from Barberton, Ohio. "He knows he can't break up families and round up people on buses to kick them out."

But Robin Luich, 52, a stay-at-home mother from Medina, Ohio, said those who've broken the law should be permanently barred. "There can be no exceptions. If you are here illegally, you have to stay out." she said.

When asked how she would feel if Trump softened his stance to allow some illegal immigrants to remain, she said: "That would be a disappointment. That's not what he is supposed to be about."

And amid talk of a shift, Trump made clear he had no interest in compromising another piece of his immigration plan - a massive wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

"We're going to build the wall, folks," Trump said at the rally. "That wall will go up so fast your head will spin. You're going to say 'He meant it!'"

Clinton, meanwhile, is spending the next three days fundraising across California. She'll stop by the home of actors Justin Timberlake and Jessica Biel in Los Angeles, address donors with NBA Hall of Famer Magic Johnson in Beverly Hills and join Apple CEO Tim Cook and other business leaders in Silicon Valley.

But Clinton's email scandal continues to haunt her. In the latest revelations, the State Department said Monday it is reviewing nearly 15,000 previously undisclosed emails. They were recovered as part of the FBI's now-closed investigation into the handling of sensitive information that flowed through Clinton's private home server during her time as secretary of state.

Lawyers for the department said they anticipate releasing the first batch of these new emails in mid-October, raising the prospect new messages sent or received by Democratic nominee could become public just before Election Day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Isn't that Joe Bidden above Trumps left shoulder???    :lol:


 “Life’s journey is not to arrive at the grave safely, in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting ‘Holy shit, what a ride!’


Link to comment
Share on other sites

On immigration, Trump suddenly sounds like rivals he once ridiculed

The Washington Post  /  August 25, 2016

Donald Trump suddenly sounds a lot like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio on immigration

For more than a year, Donald Trump took the hardest line on immigration — vowing to deport 11 million illegal immigrants en masse and pillorying his GOP primary rivals as favoring “amnesty.”

But 11 weeks before the election, Trump is suddenly sounding a lot like the opponents he repeatedly ridiculed.

The nominee and his campaign aides are now talking openly about requiring illegal immigrants to pay back taxes and potentially allowing those without criminal records to stay in the country — lines that Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida repeatedly used in the GOP presidential primary. Trump also says that any softening of his position won’t include a path to citizenship — consistent with the way former Florida governor Jeb Bush described how he would provide legal status for undocumented immigrants.

The shift, if it sticks, marks a dramatic turnabout for a nominee who repeatedly attacked Bush, Rubio, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and other primary rivals as weak and spineless on immigration, and who repeatedly vowed that he would never waver in his push to deport everyone in the United States who is here illegally.

It was unclear Thursday evening if it would. In an interview with CNN, Trump said “there is no path to legalization unless they leave the country and come back,” apparently returning to at least some version of his original position. Trump’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for more clarity on his views.

In a Thursday radio interview with WABC in New York, Bush said Trump’s views seem to be constantly changing, making it difficult to read where he stands. But he said Trump seems to have turned his back on the positions that have defined his candidacy.

 “Sounds like a typical politician, by the way, where you get in front of one crowd and say one thing, and then say something else to another crowd that may want to hear a different view,” said Bush, who has refused to endorse Trump. “All the things that Donald Trump railed against, he seems to be morphing into. It’s kind of disturbing.”

When pressed on the similarities between his position and Trump’s new stance, Bush said with a laugh: “Well, I’m sure I influenced his position.”

Republican advocates of immigration reform came out of the woodwork Thursday to draw attention to Trump’s changing stance. Former House majority leader Eric Cantor, who supported Bush’s campaign, wrote on Twitter: “Pleased to see @realDonaldTrump embrace @JebBush’s immigration plan.” Cantor lost his seat in a 2014 primary upset in part because of his support for immigration reform.

Meanwhile, Democrats are in rare agreement with many Trump defenders in saying that the nominee has not actually flip-flopped. They argue that he is merely trying to paper over ugly remarks that can’t be taken back, such as labeling illegal immigrants from Mexico “rapists” and killers bringing drugs and crime into the United States.

“I don’t think anything has changed,” said Rep. Luis V. Gutiérrez (D-Ill.), a staunch advocate of immigration reform.

Following a staff shake-up last week amid worsening poll numbers against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, Trump has sought to move to the center — at least rhetorically — in a number of areas, including immigration. Although the nominee has been cagey on the details, Trump’s remarks so far have borne remarkable similarities to the positions that Bush and others held on immigration reform.

For example, Bush wrote in a 2013 book on immigration reform that he supported “a path to earned legal status, not citizenship,” in which undocumented immigrants could obtain “a provisional work permit, where they pay taxes, they pay a fine, they learn English, they work.” He advocated the same in the GOP primaries.

In a town-hall-style interview with Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity that aired this week, Trump described a similar set of policies. He said there would be “no citizenship” and “no amnesty,” but at the same time he suggested that some otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants could be allowed to stay if they pay back taxes. “No amnesty, but we work with them,” Trump said.

In an interview on CNN on Thursday morning, Trump’s new campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, tried to distinguish what Trump is saying from what Rubio, Bush and others advocated.

“Senator Rubio is a particularly different case because he led the Gang of Eight with [Democrats] Chuck Schumer and — and I think Dick Durbin. The Gang of Eight, their plan was amnesty,” she said.

Rubio was part of the Gang of Eight senators who co-sponsored a comprehensive immigration reform bill that included a path to citizenship in 2013. But he backed away from the sweeping approach by the time of his presidential campaign and repeatedly insisted that he did not support “amnesty.”

Rubio also emphasized during his presidential campaign that he would not hesitate to deport illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes. But he took a more tolerant attitude toward those who did not commit serious crimes.

“If you’re a criminal alien, no, you can’t stay,” he said on NBC’s “Meet The Press” in January, specifying that he meant those who committed felonies. He added: “I don’t think you’re gonna round up and deport 12 million people.”

In that interview, Trump said he would deport illegal immigrants who are “gang members.” But polling the audience, he seemed open to a different approach to those who have not broken laws aside from being in the country without proper documents.

“So now we have the person, 20 years been an upstanding person, the family is great, everyone is great, do we throw them out or do we work with them?” Trump asked the crowd to a mixed reaction.

Trump said Thursday that he will lay out an “exact plan” on immigration in an upcoming speech.

“I will be doing that, I’d say, over the next week or so,” Trump told reporters at Trump Tower in New York. “I look forward to it.”

He insisted that he is “very strong on illegal immigration” and warned not to be fooled by the news media.

“You either have a country or you don’t. We either have borders or we don’t,” Trump said, adding that he would still build a massive wall along the southern border, and make Mexico pay for it, if elected president.

At a Thursday afternoon rally in Manchester, N.H., Trump sought to project strength in his immigration positions, reiterating his commitment to building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. But he did not offer any new details on his revised stance.

“We will end illegal immigration, and we will restore the constitutional rule of law,” Trump pledged.

The wavering marks a sharp departure from last year, when Trump said in television interviews on NBC and MSNBC that illegal immigrants “have to go” and he vowed to create a “deportation force.” The tone he has adopted lately no longer includes that language.

As a candidate in the primary, Trump hammered Bush and Rubio for being soft on illegal immigrants.

The issue Bush and Rubio ran into with the GOP base was that many conservatives saw anything short of deporting all illegal immigrants as a form of “amnesty,” which has become one of the most damaging words to be associated with in Republican circles.

Now, Trump risks having the same problem in the final stretch before the general election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2016 at 1:53 PM, 41chevy said:

So 70 +  Republicans are sending a letter to pull funding and support for Trump and only concentrate on the Senate and House seats. In reality giving the Presidency to Hillary with no Republican candidate for president. Apparently the wishes of the people mean nothing when it comes to preserving the status quo.

Now 41chevy come on, You KNOW 'the will of the people' don't mean jack...... the Washington elite, and most state elected officials aren't going to get filthy rich of the backs of the people if the people have anything to say about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Donald Trump in Phoenix Arizona

August 31, 2016

Trump pledged to create 'a special deportation task force' within the existing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency if he becomes president, and said he would use it to eject [only] the most violent felons who are in the United States illegally.

'Within ICE I am going to create a new special deportation task force,' Trump said.

The force, he said, would be 'focused on identifying and quickly removing [only] the most dangerous criminal illegal immigrants in America who have evaded justice'

Trump criticized the Obama administration for practicing a 'catch and release ... non-enforcement policy' that he said 'allows thousands of criminal aliens [previously was all-encompassing illegal aliens] to walk around freely and roam our streets' instead of sending them back to their home countries.

Instead, he proposed, the U.S. should return to an Eisenhower-era policy of repatriating illegal immigrants in large numbers.

'We will take them great distances,' he said, 'but we will take them to the countries they came from.'

And a President Trump would have 'zero tolerance for criminal aliens,' he promised. 'Zero. Zero.' [But he apparently has a newfound tolerance for non-criminal illegal aliens]

'We will begin moving them out on day one. As soon as I take office. Day one,' he said.

'The crime will stop. They're going to be gone. It will be over. They're going out.'

He said if he wins the White House he will 'issue detainers for illegal immigrants who are arrested for any crime whatsoever, and they will be placed into immediate removal proceedings.'

The Obama administration has notably cooperated with more than 340 American counties and municipalities that have declared themselves 'sanctuaries' for illegal immigrants.

Instead of notifying ICE when they arrest an illegal immigrant, or release one from custody, those jurisdictions allow them to post bail or enter the parole system – where many disappear and some re-offend.

Trump said one major plank of his immigration plan would 'block funding for sanctuary cities ... that have resulted in so many needless deaths.'

'Cities that refuse to assist federal authorities will not receive federal dollars,' he said.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani surprised Trump's crowd by wearing a white baseball cap stating 'Make Mexico Great Again Also.' [Forever lawless Mexico has never been great, except perhaps when it was under Spanish rule]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to see hypocrisy on display and a person speaking out of both sides of their mouth in under 2 minutes, then you need to see the video of Barack Hussein Obama, in which he comments on the Supreme Court's deadlock over the issue of his illegal and unconstitutional executive amnesty. He said that the decision did not affect his unlawful policies and that to solve the problem of illegal immigration, Congress would have to pass a law, which he would ignore if it was against his views.

Thursday's deadlock decision of 4-4 in the Supreme Court upheld an injunction on Obama's 2014 Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents policy. However, Obama remained defiant that the majority of illegal aliens in the country are not at risk for deportation, and that it would take Congress passing another law in order to solve the problem of illegal immigration.

Obama said that his administration would "prioritize" some, they would not threaten others with deportation.

"Our enforcement priorities that have been laid out by Secretary Jeh Johnson at the Department of Homeland Security are pretty clear," he said. "We prioritize criminals. We prioritize gangbangers. We prioritize folks who have just come in."

But is this true? Consider the prioritizing that was given to the flood of illegals across the southern border in June 2014. There was such prioritizing that Homeland Security sought escorts for 65,000 illegal immigrant children in January of that year, demonstrating they were orchestrating the whole thing.

Consider the prioritizing of deporting criminals and gangbangers by this administration. This administration releases then into the US instead of deporting them.

In April, we reported that the Obama administration released an illegal alien and upon his release, killed 21-year-old Sarah Root in a drunk driving accident. In June of 2015, Michael Ware reported that in those first six months of the year, 121 murders were committed by illegal aliens the Obama administration released.

That's not all. According to Freedom of Information Act documents obtained in early 2015, Homeland Security released into the general population of the united States 165,900 convicted criminal illegal aliens. In December 2014, I reported that another 30,862 illegal alien criminals were released into our neighborhoods by this criminal administration rather than deport them. In March of that same year, a report was released that 68,000 convicted illegal aliens were released in 2013.

And what do these people do when released? They simply commit more crimes because they have no regard for the law.

How can Barack Obama claim to be following the law when instead of doing what the law demands, which is to deport these people, he releases 75% of them into the population of the US?

Following the decision, Obama said, "Today's decision is frustrating to those who seek to grow our economy and bring a rationality to our immigration system, and to allow people to come out of the shadows."

Sen. Jeff Sessions said that the decision was "not just a victory for Texas, Alabama, and a majority of the States in this great nation who challenged the lawless actions of the Obama Administration, but a victory for the American people and for the rule of law."

What's amazing in all of this is how Obama has failed to enforce immigration laws, but yet, claims it will take Congress writing another law to solve the problem of illegal immigration.

Well, I would agree it's a victory for the rule of law Senator, but where is Congress in seeking a victory for the rule of law and impeaching the usurper in the White House? Where are the articles of impeachment against Barack Hussein Obama  for his many high crimes and misdemeanors, even treason? Why are the American people not being given the justice the Constitution demands for such a lawless man?



  • Like 1


 “Life’s journey is not to arrive at the grave safely, in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting ‘Holy shit, what a ride!’


Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, kscarbel2 said:

So he's saying, the government doesn't prioritize arresting and deporting "law-abiding" illegal aliens who have successfully evaded U.S. authorities for a long time and now have roots and connections in their communities.

How can you term an illegal alien "law-abiding" when they broke U.S. immigration laws by entering the United States illegally?

Attention folks around the world: If you sneak in at night, lie low for a year or more and don't make any trouble, you can remain in the U.S. long-term as an illegal alien. You can simply blow off U.S. immigrant procedures.

As is often said, congress doesn't need to pass more immigration laws. Rather, our government needs to enforce the immigration laws we already have. Why it doesn't, i.e. why it does not immediately deport any and all illegal aliens, is the three million dollar question.

Votes and money, with a side of the old line "with the crimes we need more gun laws". Also what better way to destroy America with his hatred than flood the country with the dregs of society?

Edited by 41chevy


 “Life’s journey is not to arrive at the grave safely, in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting ‘Holy shit, what a ride!’


Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 41chevy said:

Votes and money, with a side of the old line "with the crimes we need more gun laws". Also what better way to destroy America with his hatred than flood the country with the dregs of society?

This one isn't solely on Obama. It's been going on for decades.

Every presidential administration for the last 50 years has, owing to lax enforcement, allowed illegal immigrants to enter and live in the United States.

They ALL came in, not just drug dealers and other dregs of society.

I'm upset over Obama's amnesty plan, every bit as much as I was livid over Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton's decisions to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants.

When I recall the "good" presidents since 1900, I can only think of Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, FDR and Eisenhower.

Eisenhower was the last president that made a point of deporting illegal aliens........Operation Wetback (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback).

Note how well America developed under the Eisenhower administration (1953-1961). That was our high point. From that point forward, we've witnessed cultural decay and declining standards of behavior.


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, kscarbel2 said:

This one isn't solely on Obama. It's been going on for decades.

Every presidential administration for the last 50 years has, owing to lax enforcement, allowed illegal immigrants to enter and live in the United States.

They ALL came in, not just drug dealers and other dregs of society.

I'm upset over Obama's amnesty plan, every bit as much as I was livid over Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton's decisions to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants.

When I recall the "good" presidents since 1900, I can only think of Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, FDR and Eisenhower.

Eisenhower was the last president that made a point of deporting illegal aliens........Operation Wetback (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback).

Note how well America developed under the Eisenhower administration (1953-1961). That was our high point. From that point forward, we've witnessed cultural decay and declining standards of behavior.


I often wonder what our country would have been if JFK served his full term.   Paul


 “Life’s journey is not to arrive at the grave safely, in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting ‘Holy shit, what a ride!’


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...