Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Breccia]

You are trying to read more into those quotes than is there.

Is he going to throw out all 11 million illegal immigrants, as he said in his speech, or not, as Giullani said today? It cannot be both.

Is he going to deport the parents of American citizens, as he said in his speech, or not, as Giullani said "would be hard" today? It could technically be both, but then, why bring up that it's hard?

Does their criminal record matter, as Giullani said today, or not, as Trump said in his speech? It cannot be both.

[Eviscero]

Is he going to throw out all 11 million illegal immigrants, as he said in his speech, or not, as Giullani said today? It cannot be both.

Is he going to deport the parents of American citizens, as he said in his speech, or not, as Giullani said "would be hard" today? It could technically be both, but then, why bring up that it's hard?

Does their criminal record matter, as Giullani said today, or not, as Trump said in his speech? It cannot be both.

He's blind, don't bother.

[Breccia]

He's blind, don't bother.

Ghostpanther isn't blind. He is, however, backed into a corner on this one.

[Ghostpanther]

Is he going to throw out all 11 million illegal immigrants, as he said in his speech, or not, as Giullani said today? It cannot be both.

Is he going to deport the parents of American citizens, as he said in his speech, or not, as Giullani said "would be hard" today? It could technically be both, but then, why bring up that it's hard?

Does their criminal record matter, as Giullani said today, or not, as Trump said in his speech? It cannot be both.

Some of them will be. Criminals for sure. Trump did not say he was going to throw out all 11 million. Giullani understands what he meant. As do I. But all who want to be citizens have to follow the lawful way to become one. The laws however can be changed. After the criminals are gone, the border secured and then the situation of the rest who are here will be dealt with.

- - - Updated - - -

Ghostpanther isn't blind. He is, however, backed into a corner on this one.

Na. The only corner is the one you have created in your own mind.

[Breccia]

Oh, and here's more of Giullani back-walking for Trump:

Giullani, who was in the room when the President of Mexico and Trump met privately, did admit that Nieto did, in fact, bring up the cost of the wall. Giullani himself responded to it. This directly refutes what Trump said. So, confirmation from Trump's own team that Trump flat-out lied to the Mexican and American people about talking about the cost.

But it gets better.

Before the talk even began, Trump's team insisted on ground rules, including that the cost of the wall would not be brought up. Now, why would they do that? So that Trump could say, to the Mexican and American people, "we didn't talk about it". Giullani blamed Nieto's staff for not telling Nieto about this, or that Nieto knew and forgot. But Trump's camp was intentionally setting up the meeting to block that topic, so that he could say the topic was not brought up -- which of course, by setting the ground rules, yes it was. So he'd have been lying anyhow.

I'll remind everyone that the only two questions Trump answered at the press conference that followed were "did you discuss who will pay for the wall?" and "why the hell not?" Trump outright lied to both questions, then walked out of the building. Try to defend that as Presidential. Just try.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKCN11A10Y

- - - Updated - - -

Some of them will be. Criminals for sure. Trump did not say he was going to throw out all 11 million. Giullani understands what he meant. As do I. But all who want to be citizens have to follow the lawful way to become one. The laws however can be changed. After the criminals are gone, the border secured and then the situation of the rest who are here will be dealt with.

LIAR.

"For those here today illegally who are seeking legal status, they will have one route and only one route: to return home and apply for re-entry under the rules of the new legal immigration system that I have outlined above. Those who have left to seek entry under this new system will not be awarded surplus visas, but will have to enter under the immigration caps or limits that will be established."

Start with that one. Everyone who wants to be legal, leaves. With that in mind, the rest:

"You cannot obtain legal status or become a citizen of the United States by illegally entering our country"

"People will know that you can’t just smuggle in, hunker down and wait to be legalized"

"Anyone who has entered the United States illegally is subject to deportation."

And the big one:

"In a Trump administration all immigration laws will be enforced, will be enforced. As with any law enforcement activity, we will set priorities. But unlike this administration, no one will be immune or exempt from enforcement."

So let's recap:
a) Everyone who wants to be legal, must leave.
b) Everyone else, is thrown out.

That's all of them, by definition. Yes, some might come first. But he listed no exceptions, nor did he imply there would be any. In fact, he directly stated the opposite: no exceptions.

Here is the transcript in its complete form. Find and circle the part where Trump says, specifically, who is allowed to stay. Don't try too hard: it's not in there. What is there, is "no amnesty". So, leave, or be thrown out.

And that's not even including all the other blatant lies in the rest of the speech, which as per usual Politifact has in detail. but here's NPR jumping in as well.

P.S. Here's Pence trying to claim Trump's been consistent. That ship has sailed, of course.

[Shalcker]

Giulliani said amnesty was one of the options. He was very specific. You quoted it.

But there is no "amnesty" in his quote. You're again assuming something which wasn't said - you should stop it.

Trump said there would be no amnesty. He was very specific. You quoted it.
You saw both of those. You quoted both of those. So either Giullani is wrong, Giulliani is lying, or Trump's speech did not convey the message correctly. None of these are redeeming qualities, and none of them support your position.

Which "my position"? My position is that Guilliani said nothing about amnesty being offered by Trump. Only that there are many options that can be considered "down the line", after border is secured and criminals deported. And there might or might not be something not-called-amnesty that might or might not allow illegal immigrants remain. With emphasis on "might not" considerations.

You could read it as "yeah, illegals will be deported - first criminals, then leeches, then we'll look at the rest".

Your CNN article gives another quote supporting same approach:
On ABC's "This Week," Conway said that "once you enforce the law, once you get rid of the criminals, once you triple the number of ICE agents, once you secure the southern border, once you turn off the jobs magnet, jobs and benefit magnet, then we'll see where we are."
"And we don't know where we'll be. We don't know who will be left. We don't know where they live, who they are. That's the whole point here, that we've actually never tried this," Conway said. "He will rescind all those executive amnesties and try to work with the Congress. And so at least he's trying to solve a problem."

And your attempt to deflect the "misunderstood" part by talking about something else is both blatant and ineffective.
There is no logical, honest way you can defend your position.

You do not provide anything for logical argument here.

[LilSaihah]

So Trump wants to abolish the department of education


what a shitshow he is

source? can't really blame him for wanting to clean that house

[Ghostpanther]

source? can't really blame him for wanting to clean that house

He wants to turn education over to each state, for them to decide how they want to manage it and let each parent choose which school they can send their kids to. In other words, a smaller involvement from the Federal government in dealing with education.

[LilSaihah]

He wants to turn education over to each state, for them to decide how they want to manage it and let each parent choose which school they can send their kids to. In other words, a smaller involvement from the Federal government in dealing with education.

oic, i thought it was a response to a specific article

i know all this stuff and the big DT's right on this stuff, school tickets make sense, reduction in overall federal influence is a nice bonus

[Breccia]

He wants to turn education over to each state, for them to decide how they want to manage it and let each parent choose which school they can send their kids to. In other words, a smaller involvement from the Federal government in dealing with education.

And the minimum wage, national parks, and probably a few other things. I'd like to call him lazy, but this is a standard Republican thing, smaller government. Except the Department of Wall Building.

[ati87]

And the minimum wage, national parks, and probably a few other things. I'd like to call him lazy, but this is a standard Republican thing, smaller government. Except the Department of Wall Building.

Your given them to much credit now by saying that they want smaller government except when its related to their racism.

Any party that's pro vaginal probes, mass incarceration and pro war isn't for smaller government. They are for selective big government.

[Breccia]

Your given them to much credit now by saying that they want smaller government except when its related to their racism.

Yeah the wall's going to be...impossible. It's fucking impossible. Last speech, he was talking about sensors and shit. And it still doesn't really address the majority of the problem! And he wants it built in record time now! With no funding!

[Floopa]

trump is gonna win because hillary is actually worthless

personally i'd vote for trump.

[LaserSharkDFB]

trump is gonna win because hillary is actually worthless

personally i'd vote for trump.

Pretty much every single plan for which Trump has given actual details will cause massive suffering, economic and political damage, and increased terrorism. Trump is worse than worthless.

[Shalcker]

Pretty much every single plan for which Trump has given actual details will cause massive suffering, economic and political damage, and increased terrorism. Trump is worse than worthless.

And Clinton plans will cause continued suffering of those already suffering, continued erosion of middle class, continued shift to lower-paying jobs while keeping her wealthy friends well protected, and increased terrorism from foreign interventions (if not outright wars).

As far as political damage goes, both Trump and Clinton already did it.

[Breccia]

Pretty much every single plan for which Trump has given actual details will cause massive suffering, economic and political damage, and increased terrorism. Trump is worse than worthless.

In fact, here's a Reuters piece on that bolded part. The Canadian PM reminds the US/Trump that dropping NAFTA would cost literally millions of US jobs, and likely an amount in trade that shames even the stupid fucking wall.

Trump is a dealbreaker. He goes bankrupt, he doesn't pay his taxes until dragged to court, he doesn't pay his employees, the list goes on. And, a lot of time, it costs him. He can't get a loan in the US except from himself or his campaign donations, he's been fined plenty the government on various levels, and fewer and fewer people are willing to work with him. In this election, he's proposing to break some big ones, such as NAFTA, NATO, and our debts with China, unless he can negotiate better terms -- but he has nothing to bargain with, except the loss everyone will suffer when he chooses to break the deal. If he can't, he'll break the whole thing, which will cause untold damage to our economy, the economy abroad, and possibly large-scale loss of human life when (a) he uses nukes, or (b) Russia invades other countries knowing we won't stop them. He's willing to hold trade and debt relations with China at effective gunpoint, risking the value of the US dollar as an international currency, if they don't accept a lower payment -- which has got to be bad for our credit rating. And killing trade with North and South America and Europe won't help a ton, either. He thinks he can deal with other countries like he's a used-car salesman, except that it's someone else's car, and he's threatening to torch it if the buyer doesn't bite. This isn't like selling shares of Trump Steaks, then dumping the company before it folds. This isn't like building a casino, having it go bankrupt because you built a second casino right next to it, expanding it with money you don't have, watching it fail, offering to sell it for pennies on the dollar, failing to sell it, then suing to have your name taken off it before it crumbled to dust. You can't sue to have your name taken off the Presidency when your horrifying political aspirations ruin the country. His proposals are incredibly dangerous to the world economy, and he's treating them like just another business deal, which quite frankly, he can't even do anymore -- nobody trusts he will pay them/pay them back. (Remember, this is a guy who sued a bank from whom he borrowed money, for saying he owed them money. That won't work in international trade or diplomacy) And if you don't think he'll treat international diplomacy with more respect, remember, this is the guy who was for the Iraq war when it started, then saying we should leave while we were in it, then had the fucking gall to criticize Obama for leaving and following an international signed agreement to do so. The rest he's said at his rallies and speeches, such as when he blatantly lied to the Mexican and American press about two questions, then walked away.

There is a reason virtually everyone in the world who isn't Putin hate the guy. Clinton, by contrast, was one of the most successful and admired Secretaries of State the country has ever had.

[ati87]

And Clinton plans will cause continued suffering of those already suffering, continued erosion of middle class, continued shift to lower-paying jobs while keeping her wealthy friends well protected, and increased terrorism from foreign interventions (if not outright wars).

As far as political damage goes, both Trump and Clinton already did it.

OH yea improving healthcare will definitely destroy the US, destroy Nato and start trade wars with every single nation.

[Shalcker]

OH yea improving healthcare will definitely destroy the US, destroy Nato and start trade wars with every single nation.

You mean doubling down on Obama plan that already has insurers bailing out? Or propping it up with taxpayer funds and further increases of debt?
NATO not being destroyed after their arch-nemesis imploding already caused more suffering then any potential dissolution or reduction of NATO could.
Trade wars are already happening - see TTIP being rejected, and TTP also facing significant hurdles.

[Spectral]

Yeah the wall's going to be...impossible. It's fucking impossible. Last speech, he was talking about sensors and shit.

Yeah, as we all know, it's literally impossible to build a large wall with sensors and shit. It takes a madman to propose something so ludicrous. I can't even imagine a nation having the resources and technological know-how to build a wall.

And it still doesn't really address the majority of the problem! And he wants it built in record time now! With no funding!

I'm not sure the "illegals are already here, so a wall doesn't solve the whole problem" argument is as compelling to people that are unenthusiastic about immigration as you'd like it to be.

Trump's also been clear about funding - his intention is to extort Mexico via strong-arm diplomacy.

I'm fine with calling the wall a stupid idea, but sputtering that it's totally impossible is just silly.

[mvaliz]

He wants to turn education over to each state, for them to decide how they want to manage it and let each parent choose which school they can send their kids to. In other words, a smaller involvement from the Federal government in dealing with education.

Great, so people in the northern States like Illinois and Michigan will be teaching science and American History, while people in Texas and Louisiana will be teaching about Christianity and only teach what few elements Christian History was involved in American History while ignoring the rest.

Don't believe me? Go watch the documentary "The Redactors" and inform yourself of what lengths the Texas board of education goes to censor and re-write American history books.