Donald Trump for President Thread

[SNova]

From what I have read UK polling seems a bit harder than US polling - the views in the US generally seem to be more polarised and the sheer numbers of people mean that things like "shy voters" have to be a significant factor to move the needle one way or the other.

The added wrinkle though is the electoral college, in reality it doesn't matter what a voter in California or Texas tells a pollster as those states are currently locked in for a certain party - however if the polling in the swing states is off then that can dramatically effect the accuracy of the result.

Thanks for the info, I'm really not up to speed with the American Electoral system. This will be the first American election I pay attention to.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Thanks for the info, I'm really not up to speed with the American Electoral system. This will be the first American election I pay attention to.

You've picked a right doozy of an election to follow tbf so who knows if the usual norms apply lol

 

[jal123]

If trump gets in what really happens?

Like I know he says all the Hispanics are back off home within the hour but really, what can he do? Does the senate have a say on any of his nonsense?

 

[LinekersLegs]

If trump gets in what really happens?

Like I know he says all the Hispanics are back off home within the hour but really, what can he do? Does the senate have a say on any of his nonsense?

Deportations are already at a historically high level


To increase it to 5 or 10 million figures that Trump sometimes talks about (his views on deportations have been very fluid recently) would involve a large increase in the budget of various agencies that might be difficult to get past congress especially if the Democrats win the Senate.

The major challenges (other than reality) to his plans would probably be in the courts as hard to imagine how you'd achieve the numbers without racial profiling or trampling of due process laws. He has also suggested revoking birthright citizenship of illegal immigrants which would open a whole other can of legal worms.

 

[SNova]

Deportations are already at a historically high level


To increase it to 5 or 10 million figures that Trump sometimes talks about (his views on deportations have been very fluid recently) would involve a large increase in the budget of various agencies that might be difficult to get past congress especially if the Democrats win the Senate.

The major challenges (other than reality) to his plans would probably be in the courts as hard to imagine how you'd achieve the numbers without racial profiling or trampling of due process laws. He has also suggested revoking birthright citizenship of illegal immigrants which would open a whole other can of legal worms.

The Obama regime has fiddled the data on deportations. They have redefined deportation to include turning away individuals at the border.

 

[LinekersLegs]

The Obama regime has fiddled the data on deportations. They have redefined deportation to include turning away individuals at the border.

According to below LA Times article the change was actually implemented in the Bush administration.

In truth both administrations probably wanted to be seen to be doing something but recognised that deporting individuals who have already settled in the US as difficult, expensive and generally unpopular with voters (even with the majority of Republican leaning voters http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ed-by-widening-partisan-generational-divides/)

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html
Until recent years, most people caught illegally crossing the southern border were simply bused back into Mexico in what officials called "voluntary returns," but which critics derisively termed "catch and release." Those removals, which during the 1990s reached more 1 million a year, were not counted in Immigration and Customs Enforcement's deportation statistics.

Now, the vast majority of border crossers who are apprehended get fingerprinted and formally deported. The change began during the George W. Bush administration and accelerated under Obama. The policy stemmed in part from a desire to ensure that people who had crossed into the country illegally would have formal charges on their records.

 

[SNova]

According to below LA Times article the change was actually implemented in the Bush administration.

In truth both administrations probably wanted to be seen to be doing something but recognised that deporting individuals who have already settled in the US as difficult, expensive and generally unpopular with voters (even with the majority of Republican leaning voters http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ed-by-widening-partisan-generational-divides/)

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html
Until recent years, most people caught illegally crossing the southern border were simply bused back into Mexico in what officials called "voluntary returns," but which critics derisively termed "catch and release." Those removals, which during the 1990s reached more 1 million a year, were not counted in Immigration and Customs Enforcement's deportation statistics.

Now, the vast majority of border crossers who are apprehended get fingerprinted and formally deported. The change began during the George W. Bush administration and accelerated under Obama. The policy stemmed in part from a desire to ensure that people who had crossed into the country illegally would have formal charges on their records.

Ah right I thought Obama started the policy. But it isn't surprising that the cuckservative Bush implemented it.

 

[Seanjd]

Could I just ask what you find morally objectionable about banning Muslim immigration? It's a precaution, we can't be certain who is or is not a terrorist so we don't let any in.

Firstly, may I ask, are you American or live in America?

I love that line, 'we can't be certain who is or who isn't a terrorist, so we don't let any in'. It's wrong on so many levels. It implies that a high ratio of Muslims are terrorist, which of course they aren't. Ultimately, though, we can't be certain of anything can we? So de we take the defeatist, over-precautious attitude you adopt in this comment and shield society from everything, like some kind of over-protective parent? Or do we just live life and accept the fact that there are bad people who commit crimes regardless of their religion?

@Bruce Wayne had it spot on when he said ban baths because some people drown in them.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Ah right I thought Obama started the policy. But it isn't surprising that the cuckservative Bush implemented it.

Or alternatively that Bush, as a former governor of Texas, actually knew quite a bit about immigration policy and its costs - both economic and political.

 

[Connor]

Trump gets the Brexiters on his side.

This is fascinating. I'm sure there is no correlation at all.

 

[SNova]

Firstly, may I ask, are you American or live in America?

I love that line, 'we can't be certain who is or who isn't a terrorist, so we don't let any in'. It's wrong on so many levels. It implies that a high ratio of Muslims are terrorist, which of course they aren't. Ultimately, though, we can't be certain of anything can we? So de we take the defeatist, over-precautious attitude you adopt in this comment and shield society from everything, like some kind of over-protective parent? Or do we just live life and accept the fact that there are bad people who commit crimes regardless of their religion?

@Bruce Wayne had it spot on when he said ban baths because some people drown in them.

Nope and no.

Yep, next time I hear of a terrorist attack it might be a Buddhist. Islamic terrorism is the most common.

Or are you referring to that study which excludes 9/11 and doesn't account for population percentage?

You're willing to risk your own people's lives for what supposed benefit exactly?

 

[Seanjd]

Nope and no.

Yep, next time I hear of a terrorist attack it might be a Buddhist. Islamic terrorism is the most common.

Or are you referring to that study which excludes 9/11 and doesn't account for population percentage?

You're willing to risk your own people's lives for what supposed benefit exactly?

You are not protecting 'your own' people's lives by blanket banning Muslims. Divisive tactics like this are counter-productive and will only harm more people in the long run. We're talking about selectively restricting people entering a civilised country purely based on religion, because of a minuscule risk of threat. It's totally unfounded.

I find it incredibly ironic that on one hand, you think banning all Muslims in case of a terrorist attack is a good idea, while on the other, you are very much against the restriction of gun laws.

 

[Seanjd]

Or are you referring to that study which excludes 9/11 and doesn't account for population percentage?

And no. I'm not sure which study you are referring to. Feel free to link.

 

[bring the ghost on]

I find it incredibly ironic that on one hand, you think banning all Muslims in case of a terrorist attack is a good idea, while on the other, you are very much against the restriction of gun laws.

Guns don't kill people, Muslims do.

 

[SNova]

You are not protecting 'your own' people's lives by blanket banning Muslims. Divisive tactics like this are counter-productive and will only harm more people in the long run. We're talking about selectively restricting people entering a civilised country purely based on religion, because of a minuscule risk of threat. It's totally unfounded.

I find it incredibly ironic that on one hand, you think banning all Muslims in case of a terrorist attack is a good idea, while on the other, you are very much against the restriction of gun laws.

It's a simple risk/benefit analysis. Europe should be used as an example to America of what not to do.

I don't think the government should have the right to disarm the people.

And no. I'm not sure which study you are referring to. Feel free to link.

It's the one the likes of TYT use when they mention Islamic terrorism.