I LOVE Donald Trump

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
He already is a special interest group. Its just probably cheaper for him to do it this way rather than paying someone else.

Lol, that's what I've been thinking this entire time. People get pissy about lobbyists ruining the White House and then they vote in a lobbyist who, of course, won't listen to other lobbyists because he is one. It will be his way or no way. People are retarded. However, I hope that his high poll numbers are either sarcastic votes or from people that likely won't vote and do not know any candidate name other than Trump.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,877
1,548
126
Lol, that's what I've been thinking this entire time. People get pissy about lobbyists ruining the White House and then they vote in a lobbyist who, of course, won't listen to other lobbyists because he is one. It will be his way or no way. People are retarded. However, I hope that his high poll numbers are either sarcastic votes or from people that likely won't vote and do not know any candidate name other than Trump.

Interesting point about polls. It would be the intersection of voter registrations and non-voters, if they design the polls from that universe.

But I think they'd refined it to "likely voters," since county registrars keep "voted" information for several past election seasons. Likely voters would "likely" never have missed an election in the county database.
 

Hugo Drax

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2011
5,647
47
91
Lol, that's what I've been thinking this entire time. People get pissy about lobbyists ruining the White House and then they vote in a lobbyist who, of course, won't listen to other lobbyists because he is one. It will be his way or no way. People are retarded. However, I hope that his high poll numbers are either sarcastic votes or from people that likely won't vote and do not know any candidate name other than Trump.

At least with Trump you will be entertained for 4 years. So if I am gonna get the shaft regardless I will pick Trump at least he will be quite entertaining as a president.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
At least with Trump you will be entertained for 4 years. So if I am gonna get the shaft regardless I will pick Trump at least he will be quite entertaining as a president.
Or you could, you know, get Internet access. That's pretty entertaining.
 

FrankRamiro

Senior member
Sep 5, 2012
718
8
76
As president if he gets the right deal he'll sell all our real estate to China, thereby ensuring that he will be the last president of the United States.

You have to be kidding.Who the hell sold more real state to China then the latest presidents,we own 2,8 trillions to the Chinese,soon we will be in worse situation then Greece,if someone doesn't put a hand on this.
 

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
6,296
342
126
Who gives a fuck if the President loves you? o_O

The Donald has said some things I like. One being that he is not beholden to any special interest groups. They cannot buy him. I LOVE that!

1) Donald Trump is not president

2) It's a play on the thread title.
 

Slew Foot

Lifer
Sep 22, 2005
12,379
96
86
Trump as Republican, Hillary as D and Bernie as Independent = Trump in the white house.

It's sorta weird that behind all the dick swinging and candor he's essentially moderate.

what are the odds that sanders runs as an Independent? zero? A four way race with sanders and trump as I's may be interesting, there may not be an electoral majority. in that case, doesnt the house decide the election? So you end up with the republican who likely had near the least votes as president.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,037
12,362
136
While I can't stand Trump...and it's inconceivable that the Dems could field a candidate who I hated worse, (even Hillary seems slightly better than Trump) so it's extremely unlikely that I'd ever actually vote FOR Teh Donald, he does say a few things with which I agree...especially his stance on illegal immigration and illegal immigrants. (and their children)
Deport them all. Make them apply for entry just like everyone else...but MAYBE behind those who have tried to get here legally.
I wouldn't even disagree if the government attached any real or personal property accumulated while they were here illegally. That might help to defray the various costs they've incurred while here illegally...and the cost of detention and deportation.
 

positivedoppler

Golden Member
Apr 30, 2012
1,132
221
106
After Decades of of Jerry Spring, Murray, or whatever daytime trash TV show this country has gotten addicted to, Donald Trump being the number 1 Republican candidate should come as no surprise. We're all truly bleeding out of our wherever if he wins the Republican nomination.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
I like how his immigration 'reform' plan is blatantly unconstitutional and all the RWN's are cheering it. You just can't make up this level of stupid.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
While I can't stand Trump...and it's inconceivable that the Dems could field a candidate who I hated worse, (even Hillary seems slightly better than Trump) so it's extremely unlikely that I'd ever actually vote FOR Teh Donald, he does say a few things with which I agree...especially his stance on illegal immigration and illegal immigrants. (and their children)
Deport them all. Make them apply for entry just like everyone else...but MAYBE behind those who have tried to get here legally.
I wouldn't even disagree if the government attached any real or personal property accumulated while they were here illegally. That might help to defray the various costs they've incurred while here illegally...and the cost of detention and deportation.
Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 

Zor Prime

Golden Member
Nov 7, 1999
1,023
588
136
I like how his immigration 'reform' plan is blatantly unconstitutional and all the RWN's are cheering it. You just can't make up this level of stupid.

Ah-ha! So aliens are actually Mexican?!

It's OK. You can re-enter by legal means.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
While I can't stand Trump...and it's inconceivable that the Dems could field a candidate who I hated worse, (even Hillary seems slightly better than Trump) so it's extremely unlikely that I'd ever actually vote FOR Teh Donald, he does say a few things with which I agree...especially his stance on illegal immigration and illegal immigrants. (and their children)
Deport them all. Make them apply for entry just like everyone else...but MAYBE behind those who have tried to get here legally.
I wouldn't even disagree if the government attached any real or personal property accumulated while they were here illegally. That might help to defray the various costs they've incurred while here illegally...and the cost of detention and deportation.
I'm pretty anti-illegal, but if we could control our freakin' border we wouldn't have to deport most of them. Most of them are good people and our economy will eventually accommodate them, especially if we can somehow get a handle on off-shoring. If we could control our border, we could deport the bad ones, penalize the good ones, and put them on a (looong) path to citizenship. Frankly I prefer not deporting them IF we can control our border AND somehow bring back wealth-creating jobs.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,037
12,362
136
I'm pretty anti-illegal, but if we could control our freakin' border we wouldn't have to deport most of them. Most of them are good people and our economy will eventually accommodate them, especially if we can somehow get a handle on off-shoring. If we could control our border, we could deport the bad ones, penalize the good ones, and put them on a (looong) path to citizenship. Frankly I prefer not deporting them IF we can control our border AND somehow bring back wealth-creating jobs.

I don't disagree that MOST of them are good people...but, they still came here illegally and should be required to leave...

I've always liked this analogy:

Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house). According to the protesters:

a. You are Required to let me stay in your house
b. You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan
c. You are Required to Educate my kids
d. You are Required to Provide other benefits to me and to my family

If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.

It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house.

And what a deal it is for me!!! I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior. Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you to learn MY LANGUAGE!!! so you can communicate with me.

Good people? Perhaps, but they DID break at least one US law by coming here illegally...and perhaps several more by staying here. (identity theft, illegally using someone else's social security number, etc.)

http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration-is-a-crime

Each year the Border Patrol apprehends hundreds of thousands of aliens who flagrantly violate our nation's laws by unlawfully crossing U.S. borders. Such illegal entry is a misdemeanor, and, if repeated after being deported, becomes punishable as a felony.
The illegal alien population is composed of those who illegally enter the country (referred to as "entry without inspection — EWI") in violation of the immigration law, and others enter legally and then sty illegally (referred to as overstayers). The immigration authorities currently estimate that two-thirds to three-fifths of all illegal immigrants are EWIs and the remainder is overstayers. Both types of illegal immigrants are deportable under Immigration and Nationality Act Section 237 (a)(1)(B) which says: "Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States is deportable."
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,037
12,362
136
aren't all "americans" technically illegal?

Did the native americans allow us to stay?

heh-heh...if you ask my reservation relatives...BUT...you're talking about people who had no cohesive national government...just a bunch of separate tribes, all of whom had their own sets of rules about life. There was no government to which any early immigrant to the US could apply for entry...
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I don't disagree that MOST of them are good people...but, they still came here illegally and should be required to leave...

I've always liked this analogy:

Good people? Perhaps, but they DID break at least one US law by coming here illegally...and perhaps several more by staying here. (identity theft, illegally using someone else's social security number, etc.)

http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration-is-a-crime
Philosophically I agree with all of that. Practically . . . not so much. If we accept that we are a nation of immigrants and both want and need immigrants - we need new blood, new ideas, new culture to browse, adopt or reject - then practically speaking it doesn't make sense to try and root out people who have been here for years. It's unfair to those waiting to get in legally, obviously. But it's a lot less disruptive on American society. Do background checks, require English proficiency tests, make them pay back taxes and penalties just like any American would have to do, and give them a long probationary period so they cannot apply for citizenship before people waiting to enter legally, but are legal residents.

Sometimes you just have to forgive the guy who broke into your house, but you still fix the door. Unfortunately we have two major parties who are bound and determined to keep the door open for whomever wants to walk in.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,160
136
From time to time I love to play devils advocate.
And I have an easy solution where Trump could beat Hillary Clinton head to head.
This plan would ONLY work for Donald Trump and for none of the other republican candidates because all the other candidates are terrible and disgusting as politicians go, and all have plenty of skeletons of their own, just as bad if not worse than Hillary's, in their own political closets.
So this is only for Donald Trump.

Title: Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton.
Trump,
simply make the case that under an Clinton administration, the country would face four long hard years of constant investigation, questioning, uncertainty of corruption.
President Hillary could forget about campaign promises of advancing women rights, addressing illegal immigration, or pressing for a fair and decent living wage.
Any Clinton administration would be constantly consumed and sidelined entirely by investigation after investigation.
And, Trump could add, this is not some republican "Vast right-wing conspiracy", Hillary.
All this is of your own doing.

Focusing on the emails and the private server, Trump could simply make the case that, this has been the history of how the Clintons, both Bill and now Hillary, have operated.
That one would wonder and have to ask why Hillary chose to go against the set rules and regulations with conducting potentially classified business on a personal server rather than the official government servers?
And that simply saying Colin Powell did this as well, doesn't cut it.

Trump could say that what Hillary did, how she chose to operate, has now brought into question security of emails on her private server.
Maybe the emails, some of them, possibly were improperly marked as classified vs non classified?

"BUT", Trump could add,"WHAT DOES IT MATTER AFTER THE FACT?"
"IF", Trump could say, "IF HILLARY HAD CONDUCTED GOVERNMENT BUSINESS AS IT WAS INTENDED AND MEANT TO BE CONDUCTED, WITH NOT USING PRIVATE SERVERS, THEN THE ISSUE OF MIS-MARKED CLASSIFIED CORRESPONDENCE WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE."
"EVEN WITH MIS-MARKED MATERIAL, IF THIS WERE CONCERNING A GOVERNMENT SERVER, THEN MIS-MARKED OR NOT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO SECURITY ISSUES AT PLAY."
"SO WHY EVER TAKE THAT RISK IN THE FIRST PLACE, HILLARY CLINTON?"
"WHY? WHY? WHY?"
"WHAT IS UP WITH YOU, GIRL?"
"JUST WHO OR WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?"

"THIS IS ALL OF HILLARY'S OWN DOING. HER INTENTIONAL OR UNINTENTIONAL MIS-JUDGMENT, AND HER COMPLETE PREMEDITATED FAILURE TO OBEY THE SAME RULES THAT EVERY OTHER GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE MUST OBEY".

Trump goes on...
"THIS IS TYPICAL CLINTON. THIS IS HOW THEY HAVE ALWATS CHOSEN TO OPERATE. THEY REFUSE TO FOLLOW THE RULES. THEN, THEY PAY THE PRICE."
"IS THIS A PERSON THAT WE WANT IN THE OVAL OFFICE? IS THIS CLINTON FLAW GOING TO CAUSE MORE GRIEF SHOULD SHE BECOME PRESIDENT? DO WE REALLY NEED THAT?"
"CAN WE EVER TRUST ANOTHER CLINTON AS PRESIDENT?"

"REMEMBER, BILL CLINTON HAD NO PROBLEM WITH NEGLECTING HIS MORAL OBLIGATION TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY. AND THEN, LYING ABOUT IT TO OUR FACE."
"AND HERE WE ARE, AGAIN, WITH ANOTHER CLINTON. AND THE SAME OLD STORY."
"BIRDS OF A FEATHER? I THINK SO."
"WHAT IS IT WITH THESE ANIMALS?", Trump could conclude.
Being this is Donald Trump, that last statement "animals" would no doubt be considered fair game from his mouth.

So...
There you are, Donald.
This is all you need to say Donald, regardless and whether the email thing turns out to be something, or nothing at all.
Just following this script to define a probable future Hillary presidency, which coming from Trump could be the final nail in the Clinton candidacy coffin.

PS, Donald.
That will be $1-million dollars fee for my advice.
I accept checks.
.
.
.
 
Last edited:

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
aren't all "americans" technically illegal?

Did the native americans allow us to stay?

Let's compare 400 years ago to today.

This is the single biggest strawman liberals will throw out. It doesn't work. Why? Because nobody is condoning what happened. Furthermore, the native Americans nowhere near comparable to the social structure (infrastructure, military, social welfare) and economic structure (jobs being taken) of a modern state. Why do those people want to come here? Because their own countries suck donkey balls. Latin American countries to a large extent always have. They are corrupt and aren't based upon English Common law. Does that mean we should let them in unfettered? Fuck no. We cannot support them socially or economically. You can see what has happened economically by the unemployment of young black americans.

Comparing what happened 400 years ago to today is akin to the Anti-Vaxxers claiming that an organic diet without all of these "chemicals" is so much better then than it is today. Ok, sure, but then you had 10 children, 8 of whom died before adulthood, and you died in your 40s or 50s.

What happened to the native americans is deplorable, but nobody alive did it and now we have to deal with this problem.
 
Last edited:

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,160
136
Trump is right - on!
Right on illegal immigration, Trump has hit the nail on the head.
Suggestion for a putting A STOP to sending $$$ money BACK to Mexico from the US by a non-US citizens.
That would do a lot for addressing further illegal immigration.

I see this all the time. All the time.
Hispanics standing in line, wiring money back to Mexico, every payday.
And we know why this is?
Because it takes money to smuggle relatives and friends, illegals, back into this country.
Forget the fence. Most illegals DO NOT jump a fence.
They fly in by airplane, motor in by car, and stroll in.
All it takes is the proper falsified paperwork, and a cash payment to those that have mastered the illegal immigration techniques.

A fence? Ha I say. HA HA HA
Forget the fence. Follow the money.
Its the money. Its all about the money.
Plenty of loyal patriotic Americans are more than willing to pull every string to get those illegals into this country. For a price that is. And always in cash.

Its not the money, its the money. (Woody Allen)
And so true!

Donald Trump has hit this nail on the head.
And if Donald was willing to figure this out, and do something about it, then I have no doubts Donald Trump, as president Trump, could be quite successful cutting illegal immigration to the bone.
Addressing this money thing, and then cracking down on employers that hire illegal immigrants. Which after the money thing, is the number two issue to tackle.
And Donald would be the only guy to do this.

Jeb won't, as president. Hillary won't. Nor Cruz or any of the others, despite what they now say. We've heard this all before from politicians. They gripe and bitch about the illegals, then get elected and do absolutely nothing about it.

At least Obama realized reality and is willing to accept fact.
Fact being just give them all a path for legal status.
Because, they are already here and everyone knows they are not going anywhere.
But as far as stopping or cutting future illegal immigration in the first place?
Address the money going back to Mexico #1.
Then #2, address employers that willingly hiring illegals at slave labor wages.

Now... tell me of one other presidential candidate on either side that is as honest and up front about addressing illegal immigration?
Name just one besides Trump.
 
Last edited:

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Anchor babies. Gotta love them.

Looks like we need a Constitutional Amendment.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,877
36,871
136
Anchor babies. Gotta love them.

Looks like we need a Constitutional Amendment.

To actually do this you'd need to repeal the 14th Amendment, the Ex Post Facto clause, and abrogate the 5th Amendment right to due process for this purpose.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,592
28,662
136
Let's compare 400 years ago to today.

This is the single biggest strawman liberals will throw out. It doesn't work. Why? Because nobody is condoning what happened. Furthermore, the native Americans nowhere near comparable to the social structure (infrastructure, military, social welfare) and economic structure (jobs being taken) of a modern state. Why do those people want to come here? Because their own countries suck donkey balls. Latin American countries to a large extent always have. They are corrupt and aren't based upon English Common law. Does that mean we should let them in unfettered? Fuck no. We cannot support them socially or economically. You can see what has happened economically by the unemployment of young black americans.

Comparing what happened 400 years ago to today is akin to the Anti-Vaxxers claiming that an organic diet without all of these "chemicals" is so much better then than it is today. Ok, sure, but then you had 10 children, 8 of whom died before adulthood, and you died in your 40s or 50s.

What happened to the native americans is deplorable, but nobody alive did it and now we have to deal with this problem.

Teaching in grade school "Columbus discovered America" is de-facto condoning.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
I don't disagree that MOST of them are good people...but, they still came here illegally and should be required to leave...

I've always liked this analogy:



Good people? Perhaps, but they DID break at least one US law by coming here illegally...and perhaps several more by staying here. (identity theft, illegally using someone else's social security number, etc.)

http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration-is-a-crime

Yes, they did break the law. But you're going to have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law for each and every single one of them individually.

The 'deport them all' rhetoric is unrealistic. We can't just round up every one who looks like an illegal and ship them south.