I keep hearing republican politicians say

[Deleted]

Is deprivalists a word?

No, it's not. Fake nouns.

[Teleros]

Eventually there has to be follow-through. When 2020 comes around, he isn't going to get re-elected without results.

Of course, but he's got quite a lot of time until then .

The judges spend their careers studying the constitution, and Donald Trump appears to have never read it- who's out of touch now?

That would be okay if half these judges weren't activists that believe in a "living constitution" that needs regularly updating :P .

Anyway, intent matters in the law.

It's not like they asked him though.

When Trump does something so mind-bogglingly stupid as calling for an unconstitutional Muslim ban and then tries to implement something that looks an awful lot like a Muslim ban...people will understand what the intent is.

If it's constitutional to give privileged status to Jewish refugees from the USSR, then by definition it's legal to discriminate against non-Jewish refugees from the USSR. In turn, that means it's legal to discriminate against Mohammedans today.

If he hadn't made such a huge blunder during the campaign, then we could speculate all we wanted, but the courts would've been more likely to side with him.

It wasn't a blunder, and the courts probably wouldn't side with him anyway. He's The Enemy to all too many of them.

Immigration from Mexico has been declining. Our economy has been getting worse for low and middle class people for a long time, and potential immigrants have taken notice.

Not just Mexico, but the whole of Central & South America. As for the economy, sure the good workers might - might - stay away, but if you just want to claim welfare, then you won't care.

Since the 1965 immigration act, the USA has been invaded by something like 60 million - far more than it can possibly absorb. They have to go back.

He always seemed to gloat about it when the polls favored him.

Sure, but when they disagree with him, they're wrong . I won't pretend it's not rather narcissistic, because it is, but there we go.

Trump only won (and barely) because he was up against the most despised candidate ever (other than him, if you believe in polls)

I don't think anyone else could've done what Trump did in 2016, but next time round, assuming he lives up even slightly to his campaign promises, a Trump-like candidate will have a much easier time of it. It looks like the Democrats are giving up entirely on the white vote, and if that keeps handing Pennsylvania etc to the Republicans, the left will be in trouble.

[Z-Man]

Don't delude yourself into thinking that the two-China issue was ever on the negotiating table. It wasn't; it is one the pillars of the government's claim to legitimacy.

And 'art of the deal' my ass. Risking war across the Taiwan Strait to get a handful of trademarks in China is a moronic. Furthermore, this gives Xi more leverage over Trump. Compounded by the facts that 1) Trump is too greedy to divest and 2) Xi is smarter than Trump, this should be a cause for dismay.

Worse than that, I expect China to eat the South China Sea and possibly go for Taiwan before the end of Trump's term. His rapid one-China/two-China flip-flop showed he was either clueless or easy bought, both of which are green lights for China. If Xi ever gets the idea that Trump will hesitate if someone dangles a few casino licenses in front of him, China's going to start sticking flags in every piece of ground they can get to. (Duterte's flip-flops will probably give China a free shot at the Philippines at the same time.)

[ati87]

He accomplished proving voter fraud actually happened and 3M people voted illegally.....at least their was that ongoing investigation which seems to be super secret.

The only thing Trump will accomplish is making the US a joke in everything, the healthcare bill is the proof and the fact that he tried to appease his extremist alt-right wing that are only happy when they literally see people starving to death.

[GarlicGuy]

I understand just fine, it doesn't detract from my point though. he cited bookies odds almost as though they added credibility to his statement, so I simply countered it by pointing out two other times just last year where bookies odds were massively skewed and then shown to be false.

but it's ok, keep arguing semantics.

I can see you taking it that way, but I was more thinking it was an interesting aside.