I'm sorry what were you saying about Mr. Trump? "Can't Win"?

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

There is that pesky 14th Amendment issue. But hey, pragmatism is always a buzz kill.

It's been purposely misinterpreted: Mark Levin: Congress Can End Birthright Citizenship (14 minutes.)

Video from Hannity: Mark Levin on the 14th Amendment. (9 minutes)

Pat

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by Hand

That was an enjoyable read.

So say that Trump does get elected, and somehow manages to get 30 million +/- immigrants "thrown" out.

• How would you find them all?
• How would you get them from where they are to the border?
• How would you get Mexico to accept them?

In regards to the third point, the "anchor babies" are (I think) foreign nationals? What would motivate Mexico to allow them across the border and then to accept them as foreign born citizens?

While this issue is important, is it even possible to "throw them out"? If not then all this is just more bullshit fodder for citizens to debate and politicians are powerless to execute.

Go and knock on every other door in NM and you have 50% of them here...

[abc_123]

Originally Posted by Hand

That was an enjoyable read.

So say that Trump does get elected, and somehow manages to get 30 million +/- immigrants "thrown" out.

• How would you find them all?
• How would you get them from where they are to the border?
• How would you get Mexico to accept them?

In regards to the third point, the "anchor babies" are (I think) foreign nationals? What would motivate Mexico to allow them across the border and then to accept them as foreign born citizens?

While this issue is important, is it even possible to "throw them out"? If not then all this is just more bullshit fodder for citizens to debate and politicians are powerless to execute.

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. Start with simple things that help make coming here illegal not as good a deal anymore. And staying not so good either. Start by going after employers of illegals. Start by not giving free education to those who are not citizens. etc

[TFA303]

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, has an excellent analysis of Trump's persuasive techniques here: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius

If you’re keeping score, in the past month Trump has bitch-slapped the entire Republican Party, redefined our expectations of politics, focused the national discussion on immigration, proposed the only new idea for handling ISIS, and taken functional control of FOX News. And I don’t think he put much effort into it. Imagine what he could do if he gave up golf.

As far as I can tell, Trump’s “crazy talk” is always in the correct direction for a skilled persuader. When Trump sets an “anchor” in your mind, it is never random. And it seems to work every time.

Now that Trump owns FOX, and I see how well his anchor trick works with the public, I’m going to predict he will be our next president.

Read more: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1265893...#ixzz3jNPF5hPb

I personally think Trump would be a terrible president, but there's no doubt that he's a fantastic candidate.

[SF-TX]

Originally Posted by Hand

That was an enjoyable read.

• How would you find them all?
• How would you get them from where they are to the border?
• How would you get Mexico to accept them?

While this issue is important, is it even possible to "throw them out"?

You don't have to find them all and 'throw them out.' You create an environment where it is in their best interests for illegal immigrants to self-deport. President Eisenhower is credited with one of the most successful operations, Operation Wetback, to stem the flow of illegal immigration.

The majority, fearing arrest and permanent disbarment from legal immigration, self-deported.

How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico

...Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America's southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.

President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents – less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol...

Link

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Hand

That was an enjoyable read.

So say that Trump does get elected, and somehow manages to get 30 million +/- immigrants "thrown" out.

• How would you find them all?
• How would you get them from where they are to the border?
• How would you get Mexico to accept them?

In regards to the third point, the "anchor babies" are (I think) foreign nationals? What would motivate Mexico to allow them across the border and then to accept them as foreign born citizens?

While this issue is important, is it even possible to "throw them out"? If not then all this is just more bullshit fodder for citizens to debate and politicians are powerless to execute.

Here's a creative start:

Pass legislation which sets the minimum wage for "undocumented immigrants" at $100/hr.
Pass more legislation which allows them to sue their employers for unpaid back wages, with additional damage awards.

The market for undocumented workers will disappear overnight.
That solves a big part of the problem.

[Pericles]

Originally Posted by rubberneck

I have great respect for Perot, the man, but all his misguided candidacy managed to do was to ensure the American public has had to deal with those low life, scum sucking Clintons fro the past 23 years. Without Perot sucking support away from Bush there's no way slick Willie wins that race. That's Iwhat I fear most about Trump. He's an outspoken egomaniac who only cares about his bottom line and being the center of attention. His candidacy will ensure then next President is a Dem and that means the court likely turns liberal. Thanks but no thanks.

I took on that lat time the subject cam up so here it is again - I suggest the lesson learned is that both Trump and Perot appeal to people who would not otherwise vote, and that is the path to victory for the Republicans (assuming they want to win and not represent the donor base even if it means losing, as they have done repeatedly in the last 30 years).

May I suggest to you that is not an accurate analysis of the effect of Perot running in 1992. Here is why I am making the suggestion: In 1988, there were 91,594,809 votes cast in the election. In 1992, there were 104,426,659 votes cast, and in 1996, there were 96,277,223 votes cast. The impact of Perot running, was to have some 10 million more people vote, that would otherwise have been reasonably expected to vote. The other rational conclusion to make is that the remaining 9.5 million votes were therefore "pulled" from another candidate.

But is is the electoral college that matters, and Clinton got 370 electoral votes, so Perot not running, would have had to move 102 of them away from Clinton. Is that a reasonable assumption to make?

Let us look at Ohio with 21 electoral votes.
1988 election total was 2,416,549 (R) and 1,939,629 (D)
1992 election total was 1,894,310 (R) and 1,984,982 (D) and 1,036,426 (Perot)
1996 election total was 1,859,883 (R) and 2,148,222 (D) and 483,207 (Perot)
2000 election total was 2,350,363 (R) and 2,183,628 (D) and 111,799 (Nader)

Reasonable conclusion is that Perot did cost Bush Ohio in 1992, but Clinton was also a weak candidate in OH losing some vote to 3rd party candidates, and (R)s vote in OH is trending down anyway.

This is the most favorable state for Bush that went to Clinton, one can go down the chart to AR, where Clinton got over 50% of the vote anyway.

A reasonable statistical analysis is that Perot took votes from Clinton in the Northeast and other liberal strongholds, and took votes from Bush in the South and middle of the country Clinton still would have won as he did in 1996, and the Dear Reader did in 2008 and 2012.

Full disclosure - I was part of Perot's 1992 Campaign staff, and we took a close look at at the results to try to assess how much "skew" occurred as a result of Perot's candidacy.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Pericles

Reasonable conclusion is that Perot did cost Bush Ohio in 1992, but Clinton was also a weak candidate in OH losing some vote to 3rd party candidates, and (R)s vote in OH is trending down anyway.

Let's call it what it actually was, a loss for Bush. And in the end who failed? The GOP and Bush.

If it happens again so be it, it will just be another GOP failure, and I'm pretty used to them by now.

Those of you saying Mr. Trump will be a terrible president, anything will be better than a left-wing socialist.

[The Reaper]

With the states' demographics and political orientation as it is, I do not see a route to victory for any Republican candidate who does not appeal to non-traditional voters in several key swing states.

I suppose that turning out a huge percentage of the base might be a potential alternative, but given the lack of success by the "conservative lite" establishment candidates after big Republican victories in 2010 and 2014, I am not sure that the eventual Republican candidate is going to be able to motivate the conservative base again.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

[MR2]

Originally Posted by TFA303

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, has an excellent analysis of Trump's persuasive techniques here: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius




I personally think Trump would be a terrible president, but there's no doubt that he's a fantastic candidate.

[Penn]

Interesting interview in Time

http://time.com/4003734/donald-trump...ew-transcript/

What’s the most significant learning experience in your life?

Look, I do say this. Just in watching – I give speeches on success for friends and for charities. I put the money into charity. And they pay me a lot. I will say this, over my lifetime I’ve seen a lot of very smart people who were quitters. They never made it. And I’ve seen people that weren’t as smart who never ever, ever gave up. And those were the people that made it. And I’ve seen it to this day. I’ve seen people that graduated … in school who were super geniuses. And they never made it. And I’ve seen people that were not as smart as them and they’re the biggest people out there. And the ones that are the biggest people are the people that never gave up. It’s something I’ve just observed over the years.

So I take it you’re not giving up.

No, I don’t give up.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

With the states' demographics and political orientation as it is, I do not see a route to victory for any Republican candidate who does not appeal to non-traditional voters in several key swing states.

I suppose that turning out a huge percentage of the base might be a potential alternative, but given the lack of success by the "conservative lite" establishment candidates after big Republican victories in 2010 and 2014, I am not sure that the eventual Republican candidate is going to be able to motivate the conservative base again.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

What is a "non-traditional voter"?

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by SF-TX

President Eisenhower is credited with one of the most successful operations, Operation Wetback, to stem the flow of illegal immigration.

The majority, fearing arrest and permanent disbarment from legal immigration, self-deported.

Thanks for the read.

I'd like to see someone with the stones to actually call such a thing Operation Wetback II, or even mention the first one in historical context without spending 10 minutes apologizing first.

[Joker]

Stop all MSBs (Money Service Businesses) from sending cash back to the Mexican families back home.

Stop the bulk cash flowing across the border in vehicles (trucks) using front or back scatter systems.

---

US $s going south is Mexico's #1 business, cut it out and they will cooperate.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by PSM

It's been purposely misinterpreted: Mark Levin: Congress Can End Birthright Citizenship (14 minutes.)

Video from Hannity: Mark Levin on the 14th Amendment. (9 minutes)

Two part interview on the 14th Amendment with Professor Edward Erler: Fourteenth Amendment and birthright citizenship

Pat