trump

[JNG]

On November 11, 2015, bwframe said:

Trumps record speaks for itself, regardless of you haters.

People want a candidate willing to do everything possible to fix immigration, including deportation.
They don't want anyone starting off talking the limitations possible. No wafflers.

So . . . bwframe. Now that Trump has announced that he's reversed his immigration policy from "build a wall and deport them all" to the Jeb! policy of "amnesty, but not citizenship . . . at least not right away," have your feelings changed?

No, wait, let me guess. "WITH US OR AGAINST US!" Except I guess the "us" in your sentence is now the Rubio/Bush/Gang of Eight amnesty crowd, whose immigration policy Trump now embraces.

Maybe next week he'll waffle his way back to a policy more to your liking.

 

[PaulF]

[video=youtube_share;D3JX4m4nJKw]http://youtu.be/D3JX4m4nJKw?t=504[/video]

The whole video is worth a view.

 

[ruger1800]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/24/us/politics/cher-hillary-clinton-donald-trump.html?_r=0

 

[Jludo]

Trump no longer for deporting all illegal immigrants.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/24/politics/donald-trump-immigration-deportations-citizenship/

Have to give him credit for moving to a more sane position.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Trump no longer for deporting all illegal immigrants.

Donald Trump suggests major shift on deportations - CNNPolitics.com

Have to give him credit for moving to a more sane position.

Hilarious as this all is... I will give him this: This may be the first thing he's done that shows he might actually want to win.


Edit: Here's the line from Coulter's new book

She went on a brief Twitter rant last night. I think she might have broken up with him.

 

[bwframe]

On November 11, 2015, bwframe said:



So . . . bwframe. Now that Trump has announced that he's reversed his immigration policy from "build a wall and deport them all" to the Jeb! policy of "amnesty, but not citizenship . . . at least not right away," have your feelings changed?

No, wait, let me guess. "WITH US OR AGAINST US!" Except I guess the "us" in your sentence is now the Rubio/Bush/Gang of Eight amnesty crowd, whose immigration policy Trump now embraces.

Maybe next week he'll waffle his way back to a policy more to your liking.

It's easy to tell you are winning when the Nevertrumper/Hillary crowd turn to stalking!

 

[T.Lex]

It's easy to tell you are winning when the nevertrumprs turn to stalking!

So... you don't really have a response?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Wow. These people live in an entirely different reality. The absolutely retarded lengths they will go to defend the man is mind-blowing.


(From Ann Coulter's new book, "In Trump We Trust")

 

[jamil]

Okay. So let's say we blow this mother****er up. Republican party has no more establishment stones. The Republican Party is now remade into the image of Trump. What about the conservatarians? Do they move over to the libertarian party and try to bring some sanity to that? Or do they remain in the new nationalist boot on your neck party?

Have you libertarian leaning Trump supporters thought of that? Is there room for individualists in the Party of Trump?

 

[BugI02]

If they are really individualists, why would they wish to be part of any party?

 

[jamil]

If they are really individualists, why would they wish to be part of any party?

"Individualist" doesn't mean "loner".

 

[JNG]

Greatest political ad ever:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLAh3pui-CI

 

[Twangbanger]

Well, logically. If you cheered for Trump's immigration policy then, and jeered Rubio's immigration policy then, it seems kinda silly now to support Trump for his immigration policy since they're so similar now.

To be fair to the Trumpers, it's not really a good construct. The fact someone turned out to be less-than-totally immune to "politics as usual" doesn't mean their stated distaste for it is somehow not genuine, or that their followers' loyalty was misplaced. I think most people can probably discern the difference between a candidate who always supported amnesty with a whoop and is reasonably suspected to have lobbyists coming out of (into?) their ears, vs. someone who picked up the D.C.-unfavored side of an issue that was not being voiced, held onto to it for a long time while taking arrows from all directions, then finally relented under the pressure of a losing campaign with people screaming advice from all directions.

Anyway, I liken this whole issue to George Bush Senior getting excoriated for backing off his "no new taxes" pledge. The people who engaged most gleefully in shooting him full of holes for that change were largely _not_ people concerned with consistency in positions as a concept, nor who necessarily even disagreed with his breaking of the pledge. They were in fact mostly ideological opponents who were mad at him for _making_ the pledge in the first place: people who wanted more spending, more taxing, more everything. I see this as just more of that. Nobody's really interested in talking about what's right for the country on practical terms, and defending those positions; they're more interested in position shifts of people they disagree with. I think there's more disingenuity (yes I know, that's not in the chord dictionary but I like the sound of it) in that, than anything Trump has done.

 

[JNG]

To be fair to the Trumpers, it's not really a good construct. The fact someone turned out to be less-than-totally immune to "politics as usual" doesn't mean their stated distaste for it is somehow not genuine, or that their followers' loyalty was misplaced. I think most people can probably discern the difference between a candidate who always supported amnesty with a whoop and is reasonably suspected to have lobbyists coming out of (into?) their ears, vs. someone who picked up the D.C.-unfavored side of an issue that was not being voiced, held onto to it for a long time while taking arrows from all directions, then finally relented under the pressure of a losing campaign with people screaming advice from all directions.

Anyway, I liken this whole issue to George Bush Senior getting excoriated for backing off his "no new taxes" pledge. The people who engaged most gleefully in shooting him full of holes for that change were largely _not_ people concerned with consistency in positions as a concept, nor who necessarily even disagreed with his breaking of the pledge. They were in fact mostly ideological opponents who were mad at him for _making_ the pledge in the first place: people who wanted more spending, more taxing, more everything. I see this as just more of that. Nobody's really interested in talking about what's right for the country on practical terms, and defending those positions; they're more interested in position shifts of people they disagree with. I think there's more disingenuity (yes I know, that's not in the chord dictionary but I like the sound of it) in that, than anything Trump has done.

Are you seriously contending that Trump has a genuine distate for illegal immigration? In 2012, Trump criticized ROMNEY'S milquetoast immigration plan, which focused on "self-deportation" and was a step short of amnesyt, as too MEAN-SPIRITED, and "MANIACAL." (See: Trump: 'Self-deportation' cost votes - POLITICO ). Trump is also notorious for his preference for hiring lower-paid illegal labor for his jobs.

Please don't kid yourself. Trump is not a true believer in serious immigration policy that was stricken by "politics as usual." The entire history of his life of public statements on this issue, excepting only during the few months of the primary that he was making wild promises to secure the nomination, show that he is not in any way serious about stopping illegal immigration.

The real point here is that if Trump is willing to "soften" on his signature issue, then not a single promise he made on the campaign trail can be trusted. Not the Supreme Court list, not his sudden and convenient conversion from pro-choice to pro-life--none of it.

Which is what those of us who abstained from the kool-aid have been trying to tell you Trump True Believers for months now.

 

[bwframe]

Same old NeverTrump/Hillary crowd bull. "We can't depend on what Trump says he will do. Blah, blah, blah. Nana boo boo. "

We all know, without a doubt, what Hillary will do, yet you all still seem to want to help her win.

 

[Twangbanger]

Are you seriously contending that Trump has a genuine distate for illegal immigration? In 2012, Trump criticized ROMNEY'S milquetoast immigration plan, which focused on "self-deportation" and was a step short of amnesyt, as too MEAN-SPIRITED, and "MANIACAL." (See: Trump: 'Self-deportation' cost votes - POLITICO ). Trump is also notorious for his preference for hiring lower-paid illegal labor for his jobs.

Please don't kid yourself. Trump is not a true believer in serious immigration policy that was stricken by "politics as usual." The entire history of his life of public statements on this issue, excepting only during the few months of the primary that he was making wild promises to secure the nomination, show that he is not in any way serious about stopping illegal immigration.

The real point here is that if Trump is willing to "soften" on his signature issue, then not a single promise he made on the campaign trail can be trusted. Not the Supreme Court list, not his sudden and convenient conversion from pro-choice to pro-life--none of it.

Which is what those of us who abstained from the kool-aid have been trying to tell you Trump True Believers for months now.

No; simply that it's going to take more than what he said this week to provide the full-on proof of apostasy that so many seem so desperate to find. Based on what he said, you've got people claiming it's anywhere from a near-complete capitulation to "don't be fooled, it's really no change at all." So I'm just asking you Trump Hysterics to make up your minds on one, unified conclusion in response to this.

Me, I think he's a charlatan. But who exactly was the electable, true-blue non-charlatan in this primary race? Or more to the point - what were the Trump supporters supposed to do? I'm inclined to give them some credit in this. I can absolutely see how they might, reasonably, think that a charlatan who burns the house down is better than a charlatan who props it up. You're acting like we had this race won until Trump showed up. And I think that's delusional.

 

[JNG]

We did, in fact, have this race won until Trump showed up. Polling for most of the primary showed that he was just about the only candidate in the mix who would lose head to head against Hillary. Cruz, Kasich, heck, even Jeb! would be running away with it, despite media bias.

 

[Twangbanger]

We did, in fact, have this race won until Trump showed up. Polling for most of the primary showed that he was just about the only candidate in the mix who would lose head to head against Hillary. Cruz, Kasich, heck, even Jeb! would be running away with it, despite media bias.

That's just objectively false. Kasich was the only candidate who consistently beat Hillary outside the error margin in the RCP poll aggregate (and - the media never really "went to work" on destroying him). Rubio occasionally poked his head up above Hillary, but not consistently, and after Chris Christie did the robot thing on him he simply never recovered. Cruz (whom I supported) and Jeb were nowhere close.

I don't like Trump either, but there's no sense revising history and deluding ourselves on this. Not at any point did we ever "have this race won." The only chance we had is a guy who won ONE state, and voted for the Assault Weapon Ban when he was in Congress. This race was a sht.burger from day one, Trump or no Trump.

 

[BugI02]

I am in agreement with Twangerbanger. You have seen the withering fire of the entire mainstream press, now proven to be in the bag for Hilary, turned on Trump. Do you seriously think that the also-rans that you hold up as possible winning alternatives to Trump, who couldn't withstand just his disdain, could have survived the same.

One reason that Trump has yet to be holed at the waterline is the fierce (nod to jamil (*NHRN)) loyalty of his partisans. If these people were supporting 'meh, Kasich' the results of the MSM onslaught would be similar to the fate of McCain and Romney (and Trump has had to 'face' vastly more friendly fire than either of them)

As always, since I am a known Trump supporter, feel free to dismiss my opinion as some crank, alt-right, cultist claptrap of no real importance. After all I have no Facebook presence or Twitter account, so what of value could I possibly know?

 

[JNG]

banger, you must use a different definition of "objectively false" than I do. When I use that term, I'm referring to something that is false regardless of opinions about its truth or falsity. If we're looking at historical head to head polling, the thing that is "objectively false" is trying to act like the polls did not consistently show Trump getting shellacked by Clinton head to head and the other candidates not getting shellacked by Clinton head to head.

Even as late as early April, when Trump was in the middle of assassinating Cruz's character, head-to-head polling showed Trump losing to Clinton by 9, Cruz tied within the margin of error, and Kasich ahead 7.

Go back to November, when Rubio and Carson were still in the race, and head-to-head polling showed Carson, Kasich, Rubio, and Cruz ALL beating Clinton head to head--and only Trump losing to Clinton head to head.

So, as much as I want to try to believe that intelligent, rational people could have reluctantly boarded the Trump Train during the primary because they believed they had to stop Hillary, the data just isn't there. Anyone who wanted to really beat Hillary would have picked virtually any other candidate. The people that boarded the Trump Train must have done so for other reasons. Like immigration policy. And that rug is now being yanked from under their feet, with sad predictability.

Now that Trump's platform is morphing into a sad stew of Jeb! (on immigration), Hillary (on taxes and minimum wage) and Bernie (on free trade), it's even less clear that he's substantively preferable to Hillary (as bad as Hillary obviously is). All that's left is a depressing "told you so," and the prospect of 4 years of Hillary Clinton, handed the presidency on a platter by the Trump Brigade in a year that should, with any other candidate, have been a walk in the park for Republicans.