[1]: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-...
[2]: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/22/us/politics/tr...
P.S: Green-card applications could be active for over 8 years with no-fault. The system is just that screwed up.
Not sure why you saw "law". Only congress can make laws; not the president. Besides, the 1 st amendment is in his way. There is some precident for banning immigrants from certain countries. Chinese immigration was banned for a time, over 100 years ago.
There are proper channels for immigration. If you want to move to a certain country and your first choice is to break their laws; how can you expect to be entitled to anything over there?
BTW, under Obama more people have been deported than under any other President. I'm in favor of trying to do as much as possible to prevent illegal immigration. And yet the comment I made that you responded to is absolutely correct. Think about it.
No, they're set to discourage inmigration that doesn't prove to be a net benefit to the country or doesn't serve a particular cause.
> Many industries, including Trump's field of construction rely on illegal immigrants for a large part of their labor source.
They rely on it for bigger profit margins; they don't need illegal immigration to exist. The market can perfectly adjust to the situation: If workers are pricing themselves too high to the point many building projects are no longer worth the investment, either the project doesn't happen and workers have to adjust their prices accordingly, the project is actually valuable enough for the client to cough up the extra cost or the intermediary (construction company) lowers their profits to stay competitive.
And if your feeling is that anyone who voted for Trump is worthy only of contempt, then you truly missed the point.
Many are willing to see a failure of empathy in others but not in themselves.
I hate the racism and sexism that his movement represents. I hate that people are treating his election as a vindication of the worst elements of our nation's history, rather than an expression of sheer desperation from the burping turtle at the bottom of the stack.
I've worked in tech for 10 years. It's full of people who did not vocally support Trump (and may well have voted for Clinton) but who perpetuate sexism and racism and think that they're doing so for valid business reasons ("culture fit"). I know who the enemy is and I know who to hate. It's not the guy in Milwaukee who lost his job and his dignity and can't afford to insure his family and gets socked with an "individual mandate" penalty for it.
That is a problem. Because despite you overlooking their flaws, the "portions of the country that have been most ravaged by free trade orgies and globalism — Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa — were filled with rage" saw "a protector and beneficiary of all the worst components of status quo elite corruption" and overlooked intolerance and targeted crony capitalist corruption.
Solely focusing on “racism/sexism/xenophobia” while ignoring “economic suffering” is what led to this outcome.
Cenk Uygur put it succinctly during the primaries: “Instead of looking at it as, ‘Hey, one guy hasn’t taken corrupting money and the other one has,’ you frame it as male vs. female,” Uygur said. “And hence, put me in a position where I’m forced to say, no, I don’t think it would be historic because I think it’s the same old establishment.”
Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and Peter Thiel are categorically not what this country needs. I wish we had given Hillary a chance. If she had turned out to be an Establishment hack, we could fire her in 2020.
A record as a carpet-bagging New York senator, notable only for her vote to go to war in Iraq. A stint as Secretary of State unblemished by any positive accomplishment. Both of those jobs were from the Democratic establishment, which then went on to literally fix the nomination process for her.
Forget the money from Goldman Sachs, she took money from Donald Trump for goodness sake. She is the epitome of an establishment hack. The Democratic establishment sold out their base.
I'm in my 30s, which means that I'm 97 in tech years. So I remember the 1990s. People were horrible to that woman. Her complaint about a "vast right-wing conspiracy" is spot-on. The Establishment beat the hell out of her.
So she realized that she had to work with the Establishment to get things done. Like I said, I'd rather take a chance of planting a bomb in it than throw a brick at it. And if I'm wrong and Clinton proved a sellout, we could fire her in 2020.
Yes, she accepted her market rate for speeches at Goldman Sachs... after leaving public service. Wouldn't you? I despise Goldman Sachs and I applied to work for them at one point, because if I'd gotten the Core Strats gig, it would have been good for my career. Almost all of us are whores, or were at one time. That's how capitalism works.
The Democratic establishment sold out their base.
I dislike the Democratic establishment (although it is less onerous than the Republican one). I dislike the fact that left-leaning and rational people face a complacent one-party system. Not enough to vote for Trump.
Just saying that people are "dirty" because they have friends in the Establishment is bigoted and Trumpist. We have to accept that people have different strategies for dealing with corruption, corporatism, and national failure and that one only knows the right one in hindsight.
Do you suppose that might just have happened because she's a horrible person?
If you remember the 1990s, do you remember Billy Dale? Waco? Gary Aldrich (and if you do, was enforcing a no no-pan rule good or bad ^_^)? The magically moving Rose law Firm billing records and her law partner going to the Federal pen? Her public responses to those who accused her husband of rape, sexual assault, or inappropriate (power and age) sexual relations? The looting of the White House? Filegate, with it's blackmail treasures?
And that's just stuff that happened in the 8 year administration that her fingerprints are clearly on.
Were you really paying that much attention, seeing as how if you are in your late 30s, you'd have been exiting college about the time the administration was over?
Incompetently trying to fix healthcare.
Let's not forget it was her very own party who refused to buy off on her unbelievably complicated scheme, remember those charts?
Look, maybe I buy Hillary once having an IQ of 140, but can you give me any evidence it ever translated into success in her life, except for attracting Bill?
Compare to, for example, the #1 woman of this election, the one you've probably never heard of, Kellyanne Conway, who became Trump's campaign manager as of August 17th. She's the first successful female US presidential campaign manager, BTW.
Anyway, just a thought or three from one of HN's right-wing psychopaths....
Do you think the law should be changed? Should we try to perfectly enforce every law, no matter how cruel or costly it is? Should the DEA start raiding cancer patients again?
Laws are always selectively enforced, by necessity. Politicians, prosecutors, police chiefs, LEO's and others dictate how resources are allocated to enforcement.
I fully support their plight and their right (I am myself an immigrant, a legal alien for 11 years with little chance of acquiring citizenship), however, this is exactly the limit of modern democracy. Non-citizens do not vote, despite living in the country and sharing similar rights and responsibilities.
Birthright citizenship is the largest remaining privilege and discrimination out there — legally enforced, and nearly as oppressive as racial discrimination before. It was really convenient to sweep the issue under the rug — until now.
I'm curious, why do you think you have little chance of acquiring citizenship?
However that does not invalidate my point... which is that by reading the book one can better understand Trump's approach to the media and what I believe will be his approach to the presidency.
So, in spite of the ghost writer, consider that Trump did put his name to the book and endorse it, therefore I think it is reasonable to assume that he was happy with the contents. Certainly if the roles were reversed I believe anyone would read a book about themselves and insist on changes if there were major errors prior to publishing.
Trump wants Europe to foot more of the bill for NATO.
We are merely afraid that Trump is as bad as he sounds, whatever the press said about him is irrelevant to that, and much more concrete than Hilary's abstract emails.
But I guess many voters out there thought like you. I just can't comprehend it personally. I'm sure there are many of us who don't consider such talk moral and acceptable even in casual settings.
These comments always make me chuckle. You live in a squeaky clean world that I've personally never experienced and I'm not really sure where you go do find it. I mean, hell, browse around on any popular image sharing site for 5 minutes and you'll see worse comments in any thread with a vaguely attractive female.
If you've ever been in a men's bathroom, you've overheard these types of obnoxious conversations. But collectively, America loves to gasp and shout about how utterly shocking it is that people would talk in such a manner! Outrageous! "Well, I never!"
Many people swear -- heck, I just did so in a public post under my own identity just to make a point! Many people use many terms to describe male and female anatomy. Nobody I know brags about being able to willfully assault people.
You need to study more about crime and the psychology of victims/perpetrators.
You are being daft and you are not sincerely apologizing for it. You are defending a person with a lot of power who claims to grope women without their consent. If you want to argue that the claim is not correct and that he was lying the do so. But he clearly was not joking. It was not funny.
You are being daft because I clearly said that you need to read up on the psychology of victims/perpetrators because you made the stupid claim that if the women really were groped then they would have called the cops. I did not say you need to do this reading so that you can conclude Donald Trump is a criminal.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/all-the-women-accusing-trump...
First, let's settle on definitions: In this context, let's agree to define "assault" as including willfully touching someone's breasts or groin region without consent, and also to include kissing them on the lips without their consent. Please note I did not say "rape." I said assault:
https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault
"Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape."
With that definition, then yes, I do believe that Trump has done so, and I believe the evidence supports that conclusion.
One thing that I found illuminating as a result of the discussion around this was the number of my female friends and colleagues who talked about their own experiences being assaulted in these and similar ways. It's a very, very real problem.
There was overwhelming evidence that OJ killed Nicole. He wasn't convicted. Lack of conviction does not indicate lack of evidence or lack of occurrence. In the case of Trump and his sexual assault of women they didn't report it to the police. Try hard and you might be able to wrap your head around the fact that many victims don't report the crime.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/2/donald-trump-...
Trump himself has gone both directions on some of these issues, so it's hard to understand what his personal position really is, but he's made more statements -- particularly recently -- that indicate opposition to federal protections for LGBT. (I'm choosing my words carefully - he's indicated that he wants to defer many of these issues to the states, when pressed on it.)
It's likely that Trump is - from a personal perspective - one of the more LGBT-friendly republicans, outside of the Log Cabin Republicans crew.
Viewed through the lens of whom he selected as his running mate, the Trump Team (as opposed to Trump himself) is rightly viewed as threatening for both marriage equality and transgender rights. Pence has a very consistent history of voting both against protection for LGBT, as well as actively supporting discriminatory policies such as "don't ask, don't tell" and proactive definitions of marriage as between one man and one woman.
I consider as the major GOP problem, over all other issues, global warming denial. It's easy to see that even here it's not recognized.
Have you never talked shit off the record? Did you never ever laugh at a racist/classist/* - ist joke?
I agree that Trump will probably be bad, but thats because he clearly has no plan whatsoever.
Yet entire Clinton campaign was just shit slinging, manufactured outrage, meaningless pandering, name calling, avoiding burning issues, more shit slinging, more pandering
She could have gone out and ripped him to shreds should she have focussed on actual plans
Instead she just goes out and calls people deplorable everything-phobes because they dare to oppose PC nonsense. Wanting to deport illegal immigrants is not racist. Pretending that there are no problems with islam, where you've got Europe as a control environment (where they harbor and abet proper terrorists and obstruct law enforcement as hard as they can) is fucking crazy)
That was a comment made in private and lightly. He didn't get on a podium and said that was going to be the Government's policy. I feel that you're equating Donald Trump the private person with Donald Trump the (future) head of state.
mom: "Don't worry, he was just saying this stuff to get elected, I'm sure he isn't that bad."
The world is upside down right now.
That's called irrational fear. It has no basis in reality.