2016 Republican Presidential Clown Car Begins!

"What I can't figure out about Trump is how long before the invisible strings break"

It's a little more than strings - fascistic reliance on imagery and presentation is structural, foundational, and Donald has leverage (you can't push on a string)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just heard on the radio: "At what point does a fetus become an anchor baby?"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Did we ever figure out when they became terrorists? Or was that a sliding scale?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh wow, could you be any more of a petulant crybaby? Bells posted an unverified statement from a second-hand source, end of story. All the childish footstamping from butthurt liberals isn't going to change that. Unless you can prove to me that Ivan Arellano is telling to truth, and the Daily Beast didn't source their story from the Washington Post. Come on, this is your chance to prove me a liar, instead of just screeching the same old rhetoric you direct at anyone who has the audacity to disagree with your quaint little delusions.

 

could you? cause that seems to describe most of your posts.

well actually no it was directly linked to the washington post article that used primary sources. you do know what a primary source is.

the the three other people quoted in the post article what about them? oh thats right you have to ignore them cause they prove your full of bs.

you have some serious issues with projection.

 

Yes, it linked to the Washington Post article. The Washington Post article is the primary source, the Daily Beast is the secondary source. I could write a blog post analyzing the rubbish you post, and provide a link to your content, but that wouldn't change the fact that my blog post would be a secondary source of information.

 

well that answered my question. you don't know what a primary source is. my posts aren't rubbish tali unlike most people's posts here like yours mine actually involve research.

 

Right. The Business Insider was commenting on a news article by The Washington Post, hence making it a secondary source of information. The Washington Post published a comment by Ivan Arellano, who claimed this he and a number of other workers on the site came to the country illegally. His claim was not substantiated. People can say anything they want, that doesn't necessarily make it true. One need simply look at left-winger charlatans to realize that.

Yes, you linked to the Daily Beast, a leftist-biased publication.

Only after I pointed out that you were clutching at straws by referencing 'The Daily Beast'. Now, I have just read the conclusion of the court case you supplied. Can you please quote the portion of the decision which supports your claim that Donald Trump knowingly uses illegal immigrants as slave labor?

 

Well, that's hearsay. Both of you can do that until the cows come home. It really isn't impressive or convincing. But common sense would dictate Trump at least must have suspected. I employ companies to provide maids and grounds keeping and maintenance service companies to care for my homes. The folks those companies employ are mostly Hispanic. Since I am not their employer, I don't know if the people they employ are legal or not, but I suspect some are not US citizens. They don't all speak English and these are not high paying jobs. Romney had the same kind of set up, so Romney could say he didn't know if the citizenship status of the maids and groundskeepers who take care of his homes, but he had to suspect as I suspect. But that doesn't make in guilty of any crime, after all, the workers are not his employees but he does benefit as I do from their labor and services.

These laborers are damn good people! And I have yet to have a problem with theft. I wish I could say the same American workers I have hired over the years. If it were not illegal, I would much rather hire low wage immigrant workers than American workers. Migrant workers are better workers. They work harder and better and for the most part are very honest folk. There is certainly a lot less drama.

Well, for folks like you anything that doesn't support the Republican Party line is biased and liberal. Anything left of Attila the Hun is liberal, so calling a publication or person liberal doesn't mean much. Republicans have abused that word too much and for too long for that word to be meaningful. A Republican calling something or someone liberal doesn't mean they are biased or liberal. It just means they aren't dittoheads and the Republican can't support his/her argument with fact or reason.

Actually, "The Daily Beast" won two "Best News Awards" in 2012 and 2013. Everything and everyone which reveals evidence which isn't consistent with Republican ideology aren't liberal conspiracies. Truth, science and education are not liberal conspiracies.

 

The Art of the Trump

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

"Watching the video, it's hard not to get the impression that Trump almost certainly hasn't read the Bible; he probably doesn't have a favorite verse; and the GOP White House hopeful has no idea what the differences are between the Old and New Testaments."

―Steve Benen↱​

He's ... kinda got a point.

When John Heilemann asked if he preferred the Old Testament or the New Testament, Trump responded, in all seriousness, "Uh, probably [long pause] equal. I think it's just an incredible, the whole Bible is an incredible, I joke, very much so, they always hold up The Art of the Deal, I say it's my second favorite book of all time. But, uh, I just think the Bible is just something very special."​

But there is also a telling question in all of this:

I've seen some suggestions this week that the questions might have been inappropriate, since it's arguably unfair to press candidates for public office on personal matters of faith. But in this case, Trump has personally boasted, several times, about his great affection for the Bible. Given his posturing, there's nothing wrong with an interviewer probing the details of an issue the candidate himself has repeatedly emphasized.

Indeed, after talking about scripture in recent weeks, shouldn't Trump have realized that someone would eventually ask a question or two about this? The best answer he could come up with is that the Bible is deeply private for him, except for all the times he brags about his love for the book in public?​

To which we might respond by wondering why Mr. Trump would not have realized it, and, at the same time, why Mr. Trump would have bothered coming up with anything better. The thing is that this is vintage Trump. Consider Mark Daly's↱ account of a long-running labor lawsuit against Mr. Trump:

Trump took the stand, even back in those days sporting a red “power” tie, blue pinstriped suit, and that hair. He told the court that he almost certainly did not speak to the laborers, in part because he was fearful of venturing into so dangerous a workplace.

“I tend not to walk into buildings under demolition,” Trump said. “You have to be very brave to be in a building under demolition. I’m not sure I’m that brave.”

He added that he had no need to visit the site because “You can see it from a block away.”

He further testified that in any event he could not remember ever speaking to any of the workers or even being aware there were Polish workers on the site.

“When did you learn Polish workers were on the job?” he was asked by his lawyer, Milton Gould.

“Probably sometime after the demolition,” Trump replied.

“Did it ever occur to you that they were illegal?” Gould inquired.

“It was never proven to me that they were illegal,” said the developer, adding that he only heard that they might not be in the country legally “sometime after the demolition work.”

At one point, he allowed that he had become aware that there were undocumented workers there, but only late in the project.

“Probably after the demolition,” he said.

He apparently was referring to having retained the contractor who hired the Polish Brigade when he said, “I can make mistakes. This was a mistake.”​

Nothing about what Mr. Trump said is definitive. Sure, he says he didn't speak to two particular workers about wages, but that was not anything he could demonstrate, so he pitched charm instead.

And we see this vagary over and over again. Illegal immigration? One trick is to dive so deep people have a hard time covering it all; in the end, the question of Mr. Trump's relationship to immigration questions has value both functional and symbolic. After all, who is giving jobs to so many undocumented workers? When the immigration scope turns to look at the business community and its role, everybody scatters; a hard line often seems only sufficient for holding against immigrants. He has a vested interest in focusing on the immigrants themselves, and looking away from the business community. Yet this isn't really even part of the discourse.

Undocumented immigrants? He will round them up and deport them, but very humanely. How? Who knows?

The economy? He'll hire very smart people.

And so on. He offers exactly no real policy detail.

This is sufficient for his supporters, though we should bear in mind that no matter how much they tell us they don't like the way the sleazy way the politicians speak, it seems they're only giving Donald Trump a pass, a special exemption from their cynicism, becaues he's somehow "not a politician".
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "This Week in God, 8.29.15". msnbc. 29 August 2015. msnbc.com. 30 August 2015. http://on.msnbc.com/1fMTlF6

Daly, Michael. "Trump Tower Was Built on Undocumented Immigrants’ Backs". The Daily Beast. 8 July 2015. TheDailyBeast.com. 30 August 2015. http://thebea.st/1KOZMjz

 

Baby Bush III isn't doing all that well. Given Baby Bush III is the Republican heir apparent and given Republican penchant for backing the heir apparent, one cannot completely discount him. Baby Bush III does have a lot of money. But when and if his fellow Republicans discover that his wife was a Mexican national and her father was an illegal alien, well, it's difficult to see how Baby Bush III could win the Republican nomination. I don't think too many Bubba's (i.e. the Republican base) will be very happy with a former Mexican national as first lady whose father was an illegal immigrant. I mean, just look at their conniption over a black POTUS. Nah, I don't see Republicans falling behind Baby Bush III.

 

I would have, until these last couple days, bet on Jeb's war chest. But with his numbers now stable under ten percent and fundraisers jumping ship ....

Well, there was a possiblity that Rand Paul would be first out, and I think that probably still holds. But quite suddenly I find myself wondering if the question of whether Jeb will make it through year's end is valid.

In truth, I think he'll try to hold out through New Hampshire, at least.

But I'm also starting to integrate the hypothesis that he doesn't really want to be running for president.

I mean, really. Out of all the candidates, I really didn't expect Jeb would be so godawful at campaigning. More fool me, it turns out; I didn't pay close enough attention to history.

 

Christie wants to track legal aliens like Fed Ex packages, and they are just getting started.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And Walker wants to build a wall between the US and Canada.

 

Taibbi says Walker is the only candidate running who is naturally meaner than Trump. That's an interesting point.

 

Well, at least the Donald isn't trying to stick it in the ladies like Governor Cool Thing.

To.

Stick it to the ladies.

Oh, wait.

Right.

Damn.

In.

Fuck.

 

There is a fair way to deal with illegal immigration and the social costs, which also allows these people to stay. Since Republicans don't want this, but Democrats seen to favor this, we can add an extra tax onto all Democrats to cover all the costs; immigrant tax on democrats. The Republicans don't have to pay, since they don't want this and will receive no political benefits by saying so. This way the Democrats can put their money where their mouth is and pay for the credit will they give themselves.

There are plenty of rich 1% democrats, such as Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. They can afford that which gives them political benefit; they are believers and not just scam artists, right? The poor democrats can give a percent of their welfare benefits. Or they ask the rich and superrich democrats, to pay the entire tab.

 

Hmm, using that same logic and ignoring the huge problems with implementation, we should then give rich Democrats a tax credit for the economic value these immigrants bring to the economy. If we did, it wouldn't be long before even the Koch brothers would become Democrats, at least on their tax returns.

And carrying your logic further rich Republicans should be taxed for identifying and deportation of the 11+ million illegal aliens in this country. That includes all the law enforcement and legal costs and lost economic value. I don't think rich Republicans want to sign up for that liability. They are true believers and not just scam artists right? Funny...there are good reasons why not a single Republican leader has advanced this idea. Republicans leaders are indeed scam artists.

Let's look at the numbers. Illegal immigrants are believed to account for 5% of the US economy and cost the US taxpayers 100 billion dollars per year That's a pretty good deal for the nation.

Deportation as Trump proposes would cost between 750 billion and a trillion dollars and that ignores the economic disruption costs. Yeah, I can see why Republican leaders, the Republican rich 1%, don't favor your idea.

 

Latest Iowa poll has Trump & Ben Carlson equal 23% each.

 

Then do the democrats get all the tax revenue from these immigrants? Do the republican farmers and business owners have to find people other than these immigrants to do their work. Are you looney tunes?