world

Suddenly unsure on immigration, Trump trying to clear it up

129 Comments
By JILL COLVIN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

129 Comments
Login to comment

Trump is now planning a major speech on Wednesday, during which he’s expected to finally clarify his stance

Right.

Or maybe he's just gonna be sarcastic.

Who knows?

16 ( +18 / -2 )

To date, Trump’s campaign has posted just seven policy proposals on his website.

A whole seven? That's more than I would give him (or should I say his campaign team) credit for, because...

“But the lesson in how he’s run his campaign — and frankly in how he’s run his businesses — doesn’t give you confidence that he would surround himself with a lot of capable people,” he said.

Birds of a feather.... So, so much talking, twittering, face-booking. And yet not saying anything. Nothing. Nada. Zip. None. Otherwise known as the Trump campaign.

15 ( +17 / -2 )

Suddenly unsure

When was he ever not unsure?

12 ( +12 / -0 )

He will clarify that the "wall" will now be a fence - but a sturdy one my friends. And then this will morph into 'strategically placed sternly worded signs' warning people not to cross the border. And then, in the run up to the election he'll deny he ever meant to build a wall at all. He will claim that the MSM is against him and what he actually said was he was going to build mall - and a big one my friends.

16 ( +18 / -2 )

Trump is clearly not mentally healthy. I hope he can someday find the help he needs.

14 ( +16 / -2 )

He will clarify that the "wall" will now be a fence -

Didn't Hillary also vote for a fence (or wall ?) The 2006 Secure Fence Act passed the Senate overwhelmingly because the wall on the San Diego side of the border had proven to be a highly effective deterrent. What has that morphed into, again ?

-19 ( +3 / -22 )

She did, but remember, Democrats are allowed to flip flop (Republicans can't) and or redefine who is a racist regardless if they belong to a racist organization depending on how they feel about an individual. It's all relevant in the world of the liberal mind.

-24 ( +3 / -27 )

Lizz

That is correct. Ms. Clinton actually voted for the 700 mile fence (two layers of fence). She also stated she did so during her campaign in 2015 in New Hampshire.

I think all politicians waver in the wind, including Trump. Probably something that will never change. In the end it is what they do that matters and the voters have to try to decipher what they think a candidate will do when voting.

I am not saying it is right or is an excuse (especially for someone wanting to be President) but the political process gets over hyped in the U.S. which I think only feeds into candidates changing their tune on issues.

Both candidates have been on both sides of the fence (no pun intended) on this one.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

consider him as a liar and something wrong with his mind

14 ( +14 / -0 )

I think all politicians waver in the wind, including Trump. Probably something that will never change.

Sometimes as a leader, you have to change your stance. Anyone who expects a leader to never change their position on anything is being unrealistic. However, someone who changes their stance too many times is also not fit to be leader. A good leader is someone who is careful enough when making decisions that they don't have to change their stance very often, while being willing to change their stance when it's necessary.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Flip-flopping in better terms is called changing your mind. It's not necessarily a bad thing if it's based on newly learned information or genuine changes of heart.

The wall paid for by Mexico, however, was a ridiculous, unrealistic promise from the start. It was the first of Trump's many not-well- thought-out ideas that probably surprised even him in its effectiveness with the idiot masses. The wall was what jump-started his campaign, so he's stuck with it, but his "change of heart" now is based entirely on the realization that he can't win without the minority vote. It's the worst kind of flip-flopping and one that was never based on reality in the first place.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

He hasnt changed a thing. Follow the laws. Just more media twisting. Is Japan Today in the pants of Clinton. Only posting negative articles about Trump when shes the thug.

-16 ( +1 / -17 )

This guy should not be considered seriously because he is flip flopping this issue three times already. Let it go from your right ear to your left ear because he will change his opinion tomorrow again. He just does not know what to do.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Read the text of the The 2006 Secure Fence Act: It does not call for 700 miles of continuous fencing; it calls for reinforced fencing along certain heavily-trafficked areas. Furthermore, Clinton and Obama (who both voted for the bill) later softened their stance to be more inclusive of local sensitivities and environmental concerns. Also, note that the GOP-led Congress ended up funding only 20% of what would have been required to fulfill the project - typical: all hat, no cattle.

Nobody argues against barriers in areas with high populations - nobody. A barrier along the entire border would be phenomenally expensive and result in an environmental catastrophe of historical proportions. It is an idiotic idea, and while it is understandable that some not well-versed in the subject might support it, for a putative to do so is unforgivable. That is exactly why Trump is trying to hedge - he's trying to have his cake and eat it too but knows he'll be pounded to pieces about it in the debates. We'll see how he tries to straddle this divide in his speech tomorrow.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Who said Clinton changed her mind?

Everyone supports a fence in heavy traffic areas. The issue is the extreme waste of time and money building a continuous fence that has to reach remote areas. Everyone, and I mean everyone who has ever looked at the numbers, agrees that it's a waste of money that could be used elsewhere more effectively. The entire border patrol is something like $4-5 billion a year and the wall is going to be anywhere from $10-$20 billion plus maintenance. All to make sure there is a fence in middle of the desert in Nowhere, USA. Stop being stupid and spend that money more effectively if we're going to budget for it.

Read about the 2006 wall, especially the part where they decided to stop building and put the money into other areas.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

This guy should not be considered seriously because he is flip flopping this issue three times already. Let it go from your right ear to your left ear because he will change his opinion tomorrow again. He just does not know what to do.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/03/16/4-Hillary-Clinton-Flip-Flops-Will-Make-Voters-Think-Twice

So then we shouldn't consider Hillary equally serious, right? I have 4 where she flipped and flopped.

Everyone supports a fence in heavy traffic areas. The issue is the extreme waste of time and money building a continuous fence that has to reach remote areas. Everyone, and I mean everyone who has ever looked at the numbers, agrees that it's a waste of money that could be used elsewhere more effectively. The entire border patrol is something like $4-5 billion a year and the wall is going to be anywhere from $10-$20 billion plus maintenance. All to make sure there is a fence in middle of the desert in Nowhere, USA. Stop being stupid and spend that money more effectively if we're going to budget for it.

Now libs care about $$$? I wish Liberals would have felt like that when they pushed Obamacare at all costs and it's still hemorrhaging.

-18 ( +2 / -20 )

From Wikipedia:

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

He hasnt changed a thing. Follow the laws. Just more media twisting. Is Japan Today in the pants of Clinton.

It's funny how Trump supporters try to claim that the media is Clinton's back pocket - as if Trump wasn't saying the ridiculous stuff that keeps putting him into the media.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

I love how Trump supporters first line of defense for Trump is, "Did Hilary do this", "DId Hilary do that" when the real issues with Trump are his policies or lack of them. Even trump supporters know his policies are shite, but when you have no good defense for well shite, you just attack the opposing party to try to make yours look at least passable.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

The wall idea certainly got people's attention and attracted those who think in rather simple terms, 'Yeah, that's right, we need a wall.' But, as the article above mentions, it's not a good look to change your mind on THE idea that got him some support in the first place. Even Sarah Palin thinks it's a bad look if he backtracks on his immigration promises (and I never thought I'd agree with Palin!). Anyway, this one horse race will be over soon and Hillary will be the next POTUS. Like her or not, she will do so much better in the job than Trump and that is an undeniable fact.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

It's funny how Trump supporters try to claim that the media is Clinton's back pocket - as if Trump wasn't saying the ridiculous stuff that keeps putting him into the media.

Very true, but at the same time, if the media were truly fair, it would give equal amount of time to both candidates, good and bad points.

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

@Strangerland,

They are. Plenty of proof with the articles. What they do is focus on something that Trump says that they dont like and then twist it, usually something they can run on to avoid dealing with Clintons thuggery.

@nfijapan,

Facts please. Are you a jealous progressive?

@serendipitous,

What do you know? Can you dream me up some winning lottery numbers since you know the future?

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

"Very true, but at the same time, if the media were truly fair, it would give equal amount of time to both candidates, good and bad points."

You should know that's not how it works. Trump's very frequent outbursts of trash, stupid s###, backtracking on previously wild statements, personal insults and general inanity will hog the headlines.

If he could learn to keep his mouth shut ( what comes out isn't usually practical stuff ), he wouldn't be all over the media and let's be honest, he loves a headline.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

@pointofview

What they do is focus on something that Trump says that they dont like and then twist it, usually something they can run on to avoid dealing with Clintons thuggery.

Spare me the BS... They don't twist anything. Do the Clinton email leaks deserve more questioning and coverage? Definitely. But the stupidity coming out of Trump, a presidential candidate, is definitely newsworthy as well. His comments have so little substance, there's no room for any twisting.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

You should know that's not how it works. Trump's very frequent outbursts of trash, stupid s###, backtracking on previously wild statements, personal insults and general inanity will hog the headlines.

It shouldn't, that is, if you are a fair and honest journalist. Criticize Trump, fine! But don't give Hillary a pass, anything else is just a lame excuse.

If he could learn to keep his mouth shut ( what comes out isn't usually practical stuff ), he wouldn't be all over the media and let's be honest, he loves a headline.

True and if the media would do its job and cover THE NEWSPAPER and not just Trump we could really see how bad this thing is with Hillary and her blasted mails and questionable foundation.

-13 ( +0 / -13 )

Is Japan Today in the pants of Clinton. Only posting negative articles about Trump when shes the thug.

Yes, because the Clinton campaign reached out to every single ex-pat news website in the world to spread their message, "Clinton good. Trump bad." {rolls eyes in disbelief at how gullible people can be}

No. Trump's campaign is in the dumper because of Trump. Not because of mass media. Not because the GOP has essentially abandoned him. Not because of anything Clinton has said or done. Trump is struggling because of who he is qualitatively as a person.

___.

Meanwhile, back in the land of the rational, I beg to differ regarding some posters' efforts to characterize flip-flopping as being the same as changing one's mind. I believe the two are markedly different things.

Changing one's mind implies that one has put thought into the decision by weighing the pros and cons and coming to an educated conclusion. Also, changing one's mind usually is supported with a defense of that change, an explanation, if you will, of why one made the change in the first place, supported by facts and evidence and a logical presentation of how the facts and evidence factored into the change of heart.

Conversely, flip-flopping involves an obvious lack of deeper consideration in favor of immediate gains. You know you're dealing with a flip-flopper when that aforementioned explanation coupled with facts and evidence is nonexistent, or, if there at all, is minimalist and vague.

E.g., Trump's flip-flopping on gun control and abortion.

Clinton and Obama changed their minds on the wall near San Diego because they processed the arguments made against it and agreed that there were better solutions.

Trump, on the other hand, is currently flip-flopping on the "Build That Wall"™ cornerstone of his entire campaign, not because he recognized the overwhelming economic, cultural, and diplomatic costs of such a inane project, but rather because he's losing this race, and he's losing "bigly." The deepest consideration Trump has applied to The Wall is what the political fallout will undoubtedly be if he sticks with it. In short, he flip-flopped for political survival.

And he may yet flip again! That's the problem with flip-floppers: It's never a one-off. It's an unending back-and-forth that reflects precisely the lack of forethought and deep consideration that differentiates it from simply changing one's mind. This week might make an interesting drinking game; everyone takes a sip every time Trump flips on his "Build That Wall"™ crown jewel.

It's quite the pickle he's put himself into, isn't it? The very populist position he used to force other GOP candidates off the field will be the very same one that forces him to either A) stick to his guns and in all likelihood lose the election, to B) reveal to his supporters that he was a conniving liar throughout the primaries and in all likelihood lose the election.

I cannot wait for the debates! They're going to be epic!

13 ( +13 / -0 )

bass4funk AUG. 30, 2016 - 11:46AM JST Very true, but at the same time, if the media were truly fair, it would give equal amount of time to both candidates, good and bad points.

But how in the world is it the media's fault for what's happening for the Trump and the Republican Party? The Republicans are the ones that have the political power. Where is one voice for the party? But somehow, they escape any accountability. Yet it's the media that are responsible for the poor image that Trump and the Republicans have? They have nothing to do with it themselves? Their own actions are irrelevant?

10 ( +11 / -1 )

pointofview

Hmm, lottery numbers are a bit trickier but this election is a no-brainer (unless Hillary is struck by lightning). There's only just over 2 months left so how about we all start placing our bets? I say Hillary will win by something like 55% to 45%. What say you?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

bass: Very true, but at the same time, if the media were truly fair, it would give equal amount of time to both candidates, good and bad points.

Can you share with us a few websites that you know of which meet your requirements?

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Can you share with us a few websites that you know of which meet your requirements?

I'd be interested as well to see what websites meet your criteria for fairness.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

fairness is not what you think it is. If heart surgery is successful 90% of the time, is it fairness to devote 50/50 of your time on both failure and success? It's the fairness doctrine of the rightwing nutters that make a mockery of intellectual success and pretends things have equal value when they don't

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Edit: "Impoliteness" removed.

@pointofview

What they do is focus on something that Trump says that they dont like and then twist it, usually something they can run on to avoid dealing with Clintons thuggery.

Spare me the whining... They don't twist anything. Do the Clinton email leaks deserve more questioning and coverage? Definitely. But the stupidity coming out of Trump, a presidential candidate, is definitely newsworthy as well. His comments have so little substance, there's no room for any twisting.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Sorry, Superlib. That last post from me seemed directed at you. It wasn't. It was for Bass4Funk.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

if the media were truly fair, it would give equal amount of time to both candidates, good and bad points.

1) The media doesn't have any obligation to be fair.

2) That depends on what you consider fair. Being unfair would be if you had two candidates spouting off an equal amount of ridiculous stuff, and they reported more on one of those candidates than the other. If you consider 'fair' to be reporting on ridiculous stuff no matter who said it, then Trump is going to get way more media coverage than Hillary, because he says way more ridiculous stuff, way more often.

3) You're Fox "News" supporter - a network that has been shown to post more inaccuracies and straight up lies than any other news network. And being a right-wing news network, they've been posting inaccuracies and lies about Obama for the past eight years. I didn't see you complaining about fairness in the media for those eight years, yet suddenly you are complaining? That's not fair.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

I am not saying it is right or is an excuse (especially for someone wanting to be President) but the political process gets over hyped in the U.S. which I think only feeds into candidates changing their tune on issues.

Trump in particular always says that he likes to think big and "keep a lot of balls in the air, because most deals fall out, no matter how promising they seem at first." And there are numerous design and logistical challenges in the kind of massive, impenetrable wall being talked about here (private land, rugged terrain, environmental concerns, etc) but it isn't just a case of political flip flopping for the purpose of pandering or pinning down a contingency for momentary gain. He also knows from experience that it is important to have a strong starting position to negotiate down later and by doing so he is putting himself into a position to accomplish these goals through legislation, at least partially, once he is done negotiating about them.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

... it isn't just a case of political flip flopping for the purpose of pandering or pinning down a contingency for momentary gain.

Except that that is exactly what he seems to be doing. His bombastic, uncompromising tone is what won him the GOP nomination, but bombast eventually collides with reality, and reality inevitably wins.

Tomorrow he will either double-down on the bombast or claim he's simply "refining" his views by proposing a program indistinguishable from what the US is already doing: beefing up boarder patrol spending for more high-tech monitoring and personnel, and expediting repatriation of aliens who have broken the law in any way, no matter how small. (I bet on the latter.)

In either case, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. His core supporters will be furious if he suddenly tries to say the orange he's now selling them is actually the apple he's been selling all along; and Clinton will eviscerate him in the debates either way, as the apple is an unrealizable illusion, and the orange is already Obama policy.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

It's another sign of how much trouble his campaign is that Clinton is absolutely killing Trump in the money race, and it’s going to take a lot of work on Trump’s part to come even close to catching up to her. I doubt he will. Trump enters the general election under the worst financial and organizational disadvantage of any major party nominee in recent history. Trump has a staff of around 70 people compared with nearly 700 for Clinton. Compare to Clinton who has been spending massive amount on advertising, Trump had only few TV ads since he secured the nomination.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Did anyone read to the last paragraph? You should.

I have said it before. Elect Clinton and you get a President who has 5 people she can pick up the phone and call on any issue. They will be at the top of their game and ready to do something or ready to tell her what she needs to do in order to get a policy going. But more than that, you get a President who has already been there and done that. Secretary of State. Senator. 8 years in the White House. She knows everybody. 100 days to get things going? She won't need 100 minutes. She won't need to make any phone calls. She is ready to go. Time will not be wasted.

That is value. Most presidents start and have to get adjusted for 2 years. Then they campaign for everybody else and then they are lame ducks for the last year. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. With Hillary, she takes care of EVERYTHING by January inauguration, and then starts to work on day 1. I guess a Robert Kennedy administration, something we never got to see, might have been a parallel to what Hillary is going to show us.

What is the VERY BEST Trump can offer? What is the likelihood that any of his ambitious ideas is ever going to even make it to a House or Senate committee, let alone the floor, even if he serves a full four years? Can you say TRAIN WRECK? The man is a clown who does not even know what he does not know. Will he be a puppet of Senate Republicans? Will anyone even listen to him? When? Who will respect him? Sycophants who are not respected themselves. He has made thousands of enemies in the GOP already. There is no legislative agenda. He has no experience. No staff. His cabinet will either be chosen for him, or Donald will still be forming it in 2018.

I am not saying he will manage his administration differently from his campaign or his companies. He will manage it EXACTLY as he manages his campaign and companies, but he cannot use money to motivate his people. Think about that. What can he offer these people for their loyalty that will be legal? Maybe Americans need to see how an "outsider" can improve government. What do you think?

Think long and hard about it. Hillary is an efficient technocrat. Frankly, America needs her now. She will keep it together instead of ripping it apart. It is going to take work, but she is a hard worker and she has lots of help.

Donald Trump, even if you think he "made some good points" can plausibly offer very little. I think he can deliver much less than that. He is a protest vote. I can't imagine even thinking of him as a President. Vote for Miley Cyrus instead. At least she won't win and then proceed to punish everyone for their stupidity.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

5SpeedRacer5AUG. 30, 2016 - 02:15PM JST What is the VERY BEST Trump can offer? What is the likelihood that any of his ambitious ideas is ever going to even make it to a House or Senate committee, let alone the floor, even if he serves a full four years? Can you say TRAIN WRECK?

Trump's immigration reform is that would-be immigrants from countries such as Mexico that have high numbers of people trying to come to the U.S. wait the longest. Clinton's proposal is a sweeping immigration-reform in attempts to strike a political compromise that would allow illegal immigrants to receive temporary provisional legal status after certain border-security measures are met. One of the main issues in the debate has been that legalization of the undocumented would reward law breakers. There is also a lot of concern about jumping the line, that basically you have these long backlogs of people who wait legally. Many lawmakers are uncomfortable with the idea that someone might get a visa faster if they had entered illegally.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Trump is unsure about everything, because he doesn't distinguish fact from fiction, reality from fantasy. Random thoughts fall out of his mouth in no particular order. The sooner this nightmare is over the better. Could he not just concede the election now, for example?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

theeastisredAUG. 30, 2016 - 02:51PM JST Trump is unsure about everything,

Trump is sure about building the wall and Mexico pay for it. Trump's Immigration stance has alot of support from many voters. Clinton wants to make it easier for the illegals to stay.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Lizz,

Re: The Wall™ (apologies to Roger Waters)

but it isn't just a case of political flip flopping for the purpose of pandering or pinning down a contingency for momentary gain.

Isn't it though?

From Donald Trump in 2015, when he announced to roars of approval:

“I will build a great wall — and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me — and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.”

Trump's own website, as of three minutes ago, with very specific terms for compelling Mexico to pay for The Wall™ is unequivocal in his commitment to The Wall.™ It's hasn't been adjusted. It hasn't been amended. T's still there.

So, is he serious about "rethinking" The Wall™? Or is he just saying it staunch the blood flow from his wounded campaign?

I'm a firm believer that actions carry greater weight than words, and seeing how he still hasn't laid out a single concrete plan or policy paper to back up his blatant attempt to kiss the heinie's of black American voters, I'm inclined to believe this flip-flop on The Wall™ is just as disingenuous.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Trump has no clear policies. Has presented no real solutions. And is quick to say one thing one day, and then the complete opposite the next day. And even when this is pointed out, his supporters still defend him. They defend him not by clarifying what he would do, but rather by attacking his opponent. There is a reason for this. It's because they cannot answer what he would do. It's because they have no real answers. But just watch now...how one of them is going to respond to my post...again....by attacking his opponent and not giving any answers.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

LFRAgain AUG. 30, 2016 - 03:07PM JST I'm a firm believer that actions carry greater weight than words, and seeing how he still hasn't laid out a single concrete plan or policy paper to back up his blatant attempt to kiss the heinie's of black American voters, I'm inclined to believe this flip-flop on The Wall™ is just as disingenuous.

We need to remember that it no longer matters who's president. Congress makes sure that nothing gets done that benefits average citizens regardless of their political stripe. Neither Trump nor Cllinton will achieve much as long as you have entrenched, mostly white, mostly incompetent senators and congressmen to keep nation stuck in the mud. Don't worry about who wins, the American public is the loser regardless.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Suddenly unsure on immigration, Trump trying to clear it up

Trumph has bigger problems than the vagaries of his campaign promises.

His only support is from uneducated white males, and his past statements have alienated all other demographics.

He is a lame duck candidate. The question is how far he will drag down the Republican party.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

GO CLINTON!

REMOVE ALL THE BORDERS! FREE CITIZENSHIP FOR EVERYONE!

What is her plan? I guess all you PCers think all 11 million illegals should be made Americans NOW!?

PATHETIC

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

Its not sensible for candidates to come with clear action plan- they are not super-geniuses. Deciding things now limits the possibilities for sensible actions to be decided with resources of the government and the input of many citizens. The fact that Trump only wants to the law to have force in immigration is the most sensible thing he has thought. If you want illegal immigrates to be citizens then the citizen law really means nothing.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

So, is he serious about "rethinking" The Wall™? Or is he just saying it staunch the blood flow from his wounded campaign?

Wounded campaign ? lol Not the polls that I am reading. All he has to emphasize is that will be his proposal but of course if the laws are enforced to the maximum extent border traffic will be down so much Congress may not make it a legislative priority. The wall may end up being a victim of its own success. Now lets move onto the segment of illegals which is actually increasing, like visa overstayers...

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

What is her plan? I guess all you PCers think all 11 million illegals should be made Americans NOW!?

Seeing as literally no one has put this forward as an idea, your rhetoric is ridiculous. It's why the Republican party is so broken these days - they spread ridiculous lies amongst each other, then expect the rest of us to believe them as well. So even people who are frustrated with the way things are do not want to vote Republican, because they see just how ridiculous it would be to elect Republican government.

We need to go back to the days where the Republican party was respectable, even if/when disagreeing with some of their positions. A time when even a Democrat would be willing to vote for a Republican if it was the right choice (like Regan). Right now it's not even something worth considering.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

This election comes down to choices, and one of those choices involves the issue of how to handle illegal immigration. Registered independent voters like myself have to decide if we want someone who will work to strengthen this country by strengthening its borders or do we choose a person who only views illegal immigrants as votes. . . .

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

or do we choose a person who only views illegal immigrants as votes. . . .

Ironic that the post I make about rhetoric is followed up by a post with rhetoric.

How exactly does an illegal immigrant vote?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

@Lizz

And there are numerous design and logistical challenges in the kind of massive, impenetrable wall being talked about here

No shit. Well thanks for letting us know that Trump's fantasy wall would present "challenges" if people were ever mad enough to entrust him with building one.

He also knows from experience that it is important to have a strong starting position to negotiate down later and by doing so he is putting himself into a position to accomplish these goals through legislation, at least partially, once he is done negotiating about them.

A nice demonstration there of how to use a lot of words and say nothing at all. It's like the kind of panicked answer someone might give to a completely unexpected question in a job interview.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Deciding things now limits the possibilities for sensible actions to be decided with resources of the government and the input of many citizens.

Ha. You'd better dust off your JHS civics textbook start again from chapter one - otherwise, elections are no better than those in JHS. Absent info regarding "My plan for immigration ranges between an Immigration Enforcement squad to deport all 11 million undocumented aliens and building a physical wall from the Pacific to the Gulf" vs "My plan is to stick with the present policy but be noisier about it" is a bit too of a wide spread for voters to make an informed decision.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Meanwhile, back in the land of the rational, I beg to differ regarding some posters' efforts to characterize flip-flopping as being the same as changing one's mind. I believe the two are markedly different things. Changing one's mind implies that one has put thought into the decision by weighing the pros and cons and coming to an educated conclusion. Also, changing one's mind usually is supported with a defense of that change, an explanation, if you will, of why one made the change in the first place, supported by facts and evidence and a logical presentation of how the facts and evidence factored into the change of heart.

Where I come from in politics we call that an excuse. Both are flip floppers when it comes to many of the issues.

E.g., Trump's flip-flopping on gun control and abortion.

Clinton and Obama changed their minds on the wall near San Diego because they processed the arguments made against it and agreed that there were better solutions.

Nah, they flipped, just like they did when it came to Same sex marriage, both opposed it original and both changed. It was a political ploy playing to their base, sorry, but flip flopping isn't a unique phenomenon to conservatives only.

Trump, on the other hand, is currently flip-flopping on the "Build That Wall"™ cornerstone of his entire campaign, not because he recognized the overwhelming economic, cultural, and diplomatic costs of such a inane project, but rather because he's losing this race, and he's losing "bigly." The deepest consideration Trump has applied to The Wall is what the political fallout will undoubtedly be if he sticks with it. In short, he flip-flopped for political survival.

Obama said, his healthcare would keep premiums low and you could keep your doctor. Aetna recently announced they were leaving CA. Thousands of people can't pay their premiums, many had to cancel them, so much for affordability.

It's quite the pickle he's put himself into, isn't it? The very populist position he used to force other GOP candidates off the field will be the very same one that forces him to either A) stick to his guns and in all likelihood lose the election, to B) reveal to his supporters that he was a conniving liar throughout the primaries and in all likelihood lose the election.

Do you think Hillary will come clean after that slip, lie, flip flop or whatever you want to call it, when she said that she wants to raise taxes on the middle class? I cannot wait for the debates! They're going to be epic!

I think so too.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

Facts please. Are you a jealous progressive? just look at Trumps website he got all of 7 policies, yep thatll be enough to run the country

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The headline is bogus. Trump has never been unsure about illegal immigration.

It comes down to this: If you're OK with the borders the way they've been, with all these people streaming in illegally, and allowed to stay, you need to vote for Hillary Clinton. If you think we need to start enforcing the laws and we need real border enforcement, you need to vote for Trump.

And these are not only interesting, every eligible U.S. voter should watch these latest Fox News segments:

"Katrina Pierson on Trump border stance"

"Ingraham: Clinton is literally hiding behind her big donors"

And, oh my, "New national polls show Clinton's lead shrinking" ( and this is before the first debate, lol )

But no worries, even if Trump wins the popular vote, Clinton gets California and the Electoral College victory, lol

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

sfjp

Thanks for clarifying with line jumping and whatnot. I think it misses the point that Trump is probably not capable of appreciating the subtlety of the problem as it stands. If his solution is to "build a wall" then it is safe to say that you would do a better job on immigration reform than he would.

Look, just with respect to immigration, we have "whatever Trump believes today" vs. the status quo, which I believe is what Clinton is ready to work with and make adjustments to. Just on that basis, I still say Clinton wins on immigration because Trump, even if he has an idea, is unlikely to be able to implement it. And if he does have an idea, it is unlikely to be more than a spasm. Impractical, unfair, a political non-starter, who knows? I want to get that point across. Nothing drives home the point more than the events of the last few days. Trump flails and fails. Clinton is quietly working hard at getting her people in line and winning the election. Who is more likely to make a lasting reform to this one issue... immigration? It is Clinton. She is pragmatic and circumspect. Trump does not even care, does he? He of all people should have one clear message, and he doesn't. It is a debacle.

Let's not kid ourselves that immigration is an easy issue. Romney warned that the GOP was going to have to have something to show the USA electorate 4 years ago. Time is up! Building a wall is not a policy. But it was good enough to get Trump the nomination.

I am not going to bother here to suggest what the US SHOULD do. I do know that a lot of people are perfectly happy with the status quo. Illegal immigrants and their families get what they want. White middle class people get cheap help. Now with the higher minimum wage, demand for illegals is going way up but the white middle class is going to be earning more. Everybody wins. The problem is probably not being solved because nobody cares enough. It immediately becomes a race issue or a "sovereignty" issue, which says to me that people are not sufficiently motivated by better reasons. Think people care? California doesn't. Trump can't make a dent there.

Bass4Funk is absolutely positive that people in Orange County Cal are deadset against illegal immigrants. Nope. A lot of property owners are hispanic and they are doing really well. They don't want a blanket crackdown or profiling to cramp their style. Northern Cal is in love with illegals for agriculture. The Bay Area is so far beyond caring. Who is left? A bunch of white people living in Anaheim, Tustin, and Newport Beach, I guess. Romney has a home in Newport. I wonder who does his garden and pool.

Aside from the Mexican immigration thing are the H1B visas, which nobody seems to care about. Too bad that is not more of an issue, but as long as big big money in Sili Valley wants them, they will get them. And then there is "Muslim immigration" which will require a whole lot of gymnastics to limit while not angering the EU, and the whole mideast. Trump is not ready to jump into that arena by a longshot.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

pointofviewAUG. 30, 2016 - 10:09AM JST He hasnt changed a thing. Follow the laws. Just more media twisting. Is Japan Today in the pants of Clinton. Only posting negative articles about Trump when shes the thug.

No one really 'likes' Hillary, she is far from perfect and in many ways corrupt, BUT after what Donald Trump has done and said during this campaign no-one with an IQ over 80 would even consider him as a leader of anything let alone the USA. <>

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Bass4Funk is absolutely positive that people in Orange County Cal are deadset against illegal immigrants. Nope. A lot of property owners are hispanic and they are doing really well.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the status of illegal immigrants. Of course the majority of people are not happy with the border situation and have been for many, many years.

They don't want a blanket crackdown or profiling to cramp their style. Northern Cal is in love with illegals for agriculture. The Bay Area is so far beyond caring. Who is left? A bunch of white people living in Anaheim, Tustin, and Newport Beach, I guess. Romney has a home in Newport. I wonder who does his garden and pool.

And once again, we have to invoke race again, this is not a Black and White issue, there are many Hispanic Americans that want the border shut. Hispanics are not a monolithic group.

Aside from the Mexican immigration thing are the H1B visas, which nobody seems to care about. Too bad that is not more of an issue, but as long as big big money in Sili Valley wants them, they will get them.

Yeah, about that.....

http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-news/h-1b-visa-reform-bill-introduced-in-us-senate-to-check-abuse-of-the-system/

There may be lit at the end of the tunnel.

And then there is "Muslim immigration" which will require a whole lot of gymnastics to limit while not angering the EU, and the whole mideast. Trump is not ready to jump into that arena by a longshot.

I think he is, probably why so many libs are nervous, because everyone knows what a serious issue this is for him.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

How exactly does an illegal immigrant **vote?

Strangerland, no voter id is required in several states as of late thanks to democratics.

Your hero Hillary hasn't given a press conference since Dec. Last year! Do they need to donate to the Clinton Foundation first?

You PC losers realize there is a massive opiod drug problem that is killing and fueling drug gang violence in places in Chicago thanks to Obamas open border policy! You PCers deserve a visit from MS 13

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Voter fraud is a myth that Republicans cling on to so they can pass racist laws. The end.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Yep. Voter fraud is a racist myth designed and promoted to keep blacks, browns, and poor people from voting.

The myth is evil. Those who support it, evil.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Voter fraud is a myth that Republicans cling on to so they can pass racist laws. The end.

If that were true, libs wouldn't object to people having voter ID cards.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

The articles saying voter fraud is a 'myth' seem to offer up as proof of that the few number of cases detected and prosecuted. That doesn't seem a valid measure.

Project Veritas filmed pollworkers advising someone posing as a Brazilian illegal immigrant that they could vote, and at other polling places obtained ballots that weren't theirs, without ID, by posing as other voters. They were caught at least once because a pollworker knew the person they were impersonating, and that person, a newspaper columnist, made a big deal claiming how this proved Project Veritas wrong, but how often is a pollworker going to know the identity of someone whose ballot is falsely claimed? I don't remember ever recognizing a pollworker.

The Heritage Foundation PDF database report with 'hundreds of fraud cases nationwide' starts out with six pages of cases just for Alabama.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/08/19/surprise-nonexistent-voter-fraud-strikes-in-four-states-n2206947

... The Heritage Foundation has compiled a database of hundreds of fraud cases nationwide -- and those only count the people who were caught. ...

The database:

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/pdf/VoterFraudCases-8-7-15-Merged.pdf

A Sampling of Election Fraud Cases from Across the Country

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

I don't think that the extreme rignt-wing Heritage Foundation is actually a credible source for voter fraud:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/04/17/more-right-wing-media-lies-about-voting-rights/198923

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/counting-voter-fraud-1165/

http://www.alternet.org/ten-right-wing-election-myths-debunked-reality-2012

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/10/29/the-voter-fraud-myth

You have your sources, and I have mine. Who do you believe?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The courts are slapping down the laws and describing them as racist. It's a cross the GOP will bear and alienates minorities.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Voter fraud? Seems like the Republicans are the guilty party:

This is interesting: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/06/21/shocker-republicans-account-for-most-cases-of-u-s-voter-fraud/

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The courts are slapping them down because since 2000, there have been only 31 credible incidents of impersonation out of 1 billion votes cast.

Preventing "Voter Fraud" is a problem in search of a soluiton.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Right there in the PDF file are all the cases the 'mythists' are falling over each other not to see. It's not hiding anything. If you want to check against it, you can google names from the individual cases to see if the PDF authors are lying or not: http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/pdf/VoterFraudCases-8-7-15-Merged.pdf

And these are prosecuted cases. That doesn't count what Project Veritas is turning up. Have any pollworkers been prosecuted due to illegal actions exposed by those videos? Or are governments only interested in prosecuting the videographers, for violation of privacy statutes? So much for sanctity of the vote.

Don't know why states don't just reissue voter registration cards with photo IDs on them. It would cost more than non-photo IDs to issue and maintain, all they need to do is pry their fingers off some of the people's money and do it.

Here are hundreds of incidents of dead people voting in SoCal, that are probably NOT going to be prosecuted and so are not going to counted by mythists as evidence against the 'voting fraud is a myth' meme.

(And these are only the incidents one reporter identified by comparing databases, imagine what they could find if they really looked.)

https://ballotpedia.org/Dead_people_voting#Dead_people_voting_news_by_state

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/05/23/cbs2-investigation-uncovers-votes-being-cast-from-grave-year-after-year/

UPDATE: Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich introduced a motion Tuesday at the Board of Supervisors meeting to start an investigation into the news station’s findings as a result of this story. READ MORE

May 23, 2016 - LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) — A comparison of records by David Goldstein, investigative reporter for CBS2/KCAL9, has revealed hundreds of so-called dead voters in Southern California, a vast majority of them in Los Angeles County. ...

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Turbostat:

Citing individual cases is a mere drop in the bucket in comparison to the number of eligible voters nationwide. Yes, if you dig deep enough, you will find some here and there in every state but not enough to count in the imagined "voter fraud" issue that the GOP has been pushing for years. I found it interesting that you didn't address the number of voting fraud cases committed by the GOP and just cited a source for the opposite.

Oregon is one state that automatically registers voters when they get their driver's licenses. However, Republicans have fought against it--why is that?:

http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/oregon-governor-signs-sweeping-voter-registration-into-law/Content?oid=3431773

I'm all for fair elections but not at the expense of people who have the right to do so but are denied because a certain party doesn't want them to:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/why-voter-id-laws-arent-really-about-fraud/

4 ( +4 / -0 )

And it's not just voter IDs... They are passing restrictions on early voting, early registration, closing polling places, reducing voter drives, removing programs for teenagers in schools, etc. The voter ID laws are just a fraction of the assault Republicans are trying to put on voting.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

dmacleod: I found it interesting that you didn't address the number of voting fraud cases committed by the GOP ...

Because I am not Republican and don't care about who's doing the fraud and also noted your hugely important article only cited four or five cases. It's not that they haven't done more than that, but why trumpet that article?

Oregon is one state that automatically registers voters when they get their driver's licenses. However, Republicans have fought against it--why is that?

Do they have something to do with each other? Suppose someone doesn't want to combine their voter registration with driver's license registration? Now you're forcing them to be registered as a voter if they want to legally drive a vehicle.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Voter fraud is a myth that Republicans cling on to so they can pass racist laws. The end.

If that were true, libs wouldn't object to people having voter ID cards.

That's a non-sequitur.

Turbostat - you've been fooled by the MSM. They have created an issue that has driven people who are angry about what they hear on the MSM to support laws that make it between hard and impossible for millions to vote, because of a few dozen bad apples.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

That's a non-sequitur.

Is that fancy talk for "What you say makes no sense."

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Yes. Latin for "Doesn't follow", used when the conclusion cannot logically be made from the statement that precedes it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Oh, I see,

That's a non-sequitur means "You are full of shit."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hehe well that's what I would say if I wasn't being PC.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This is an interesting discussion. Regarding the issue of requiring some type of ID to vote.

Whether it is an issue or not should one not be required to show ID to vote? I do not see how this is discriminatory at all. I think it is common sense. I would think this is a very basic step to maintain the integrity of the electoral system (and no I am not a Republican and I do not see this as a party issue).

Regarding Oregon - they allow illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses. I am not sure but I thought that is why the GOP is against automatic registration. I believe one should be a citizen to vote in a country's elections so if that is the objection then I would be in agreement. If the system is set up so that those in the country illegally are not registered to vote then I think the automatic registration is a great idea!

It seems the posters above show evidence of both political parties being engaged in voter fraud. If this is the case then why not require ID and ensure one person gets one vote?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Strangerland: Turbostat - you've been fooled by the MSM.

The MSM is in the tank ... the clue is the large number of articles in lockstep claiming voter fraud is a myth and not managing to find any instances of it, when just a little googling can find items like that PDF, or 'dead people voting by state', or Project Veritas.

One survey claimed better than 10 percent of people don't have state-issued photo IDs ... but their question wasn't whether people had such IDs but whether they could get to their IDs within a day. And another survey found only 1.2 percent didn't have IDs. And those are all polling surveys.

Dear all, found on the web, a (mostly non-partisan!) interesting discussion of voting fraud in recent presidential elections, but unfortunately not including the last two (and note the list is not just a list, but a list of descriptions of the frauds benefiting each of the presidents Truman (D), Kennedy (D), Johnson (D), Nixon (R), Carter (D), and G. W. Bush (R)):

http://rangevoting.org/PresFraud.html

US Presidents and Election Fraud

Many people, even after the 1876 Hayes vs. Tilden and Florida 2000 Bush vs. Gore elections, still believed that election fraud was a relatively rare event in the USA, especially as regards presidents, and exerted a relatively small effect on history.

That perception is false. In fact, election fraud has exerted a very large effect on US (and hence world) history. Indeed, it has been one of the largest factors affecting post-World-War-II US history. To show that, we will now detail the fact that of the 11 US Presidents since World War II, the careers of at least 6 depended crucially on election fraud.

If you can name any other factor which created 6 or more out of 11 US presidents, please do. We suspect you can't name very many, in which case you agree with us that election fraud has been one of the pre-eminent factors altering US and world history. Bet you didn't learn that as a schoolchild, did you? Gee, I wonder why.

The list: ...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Relative to the elections I am sure the fact that the Department of Homeland Security is seeking control/oversight over the elections is sure to cause some interesting discussions in the U.S. Not sure how this will play out or if any decision will be made prior to this year's election or not.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/homeland-eyes-special-declaration-to-take-charge-of-elections/article/2600592

The DHS, started under the Bush regime, and further empowered during the Obama regime seems to be seeking and gaining more and more power within the U.S. I find it concerning they want to be involved in the elections.

I think this issue should transcend political parties and this is something Americans should be concerned about. Regardless of who you are pulling for in this election we are certainly living through some very interesting times; probably the most interesting in my greater than 1/2 century of time on the planet.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Bass,

but flip flopping isn't a unique phenomenon to conservatives only.

I never said it was. I'm talking about Trump.

Re: Trump flip-flopping like a fish out of water gasping for lifegiving air

Obama said, [sic] his healthcare. . . . yada yada yada . . .

How do you expect people to have a rational conversation with you if you can't even stay on topic? Obama never said, "Hey, let's give all Americans better access to healthcare," then came back a few months later and said, "Never mind."

But that's precisely what Trump is doing now. Now, yes, in the world we live in, all politicians have flip-flopped at one time or another in their careers, even Hillary.

But Trump's wavering on wall is The Wall™ is borderline fraud. The Wall™ is FOUNDATION of his candidacy. He used The Wall™ shamelessly to elicit the kind of pigheaded, xenophobic hootin' and hollerin' that one might expect from an uneducated, white male demographic.

And he used The Wall™ again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again to "fire up" his base and give him enough populist feel-good momentum in the primaries to overwhelm more moderate GOP candidates.

All of that came crasing to a halt when it became abundantly clear that his message only resonated with a minority of voters made up largely of pigheaded, xenophobic, hootin' and hollerin', uneducated, white males.

He flipped his stance on The Wall™ to try an win over moderate GOP voters. Then when his base cried foul, he flopped back to his original assertion. When people called him on it, he said, "I'm thinking about it. Let me get back to you later this week."

THAT'S flip-flopping and you know it. It's also an obnoxious manipulation of his base.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@Mrbum,

You just gave the perfect response that proves Im right. The media doesnt cover Clinton`s corruption but do cover , for days on end, a line or phrase Trump said that they twist to run money making stories.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

The media doesnt cover Clinton`s corruption

Fox "News" has been covering Hillary and Benghazi non-stop for years now. The idea that they aren't covering her is absolutely ridiculous.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Tokyo-Engr: Whether it is an issue or not should one not be required to show ID to vote? I do not see how this is discriminatory at all. I think it is common sense. I would think this is a very basic step to maintain the integrity of the electoral system (and no I am not a Republican and I do not see this as a party issue).

While the laws might sound easy to us, there are actually millions of people (literally) who would have to go through a process to get ID cards. Think about someone in a retirement home who hasn't driven in decades. Are you willing to accept that collateral damage when studies show voter fraud does not exist to any real extent? There's no reason to increase the burden with no benefit. It's illogical. And expensive.

What's concerning is that there are so many people who support voter ID laws and they have no idea about what I said above. Most, if not all, supporters I meet seem to hear this for the first time and it concerns me that that information is being left out when being presented to such a large number of people.

pointofview: You just gave the perfect response that proves Im right. The media doesnt cover Clinton`s corruption but do cover , for days on end, a line or phrase Trump said that they twist to run money making stories.

Clinton's biggest albatross is that people don't trust her, even if she's yet to be linked to any smoking gun whatsoever. That's because, largely, the 24-hour anti-Clinton news cycle from the far right. Your message is getting out there. Just look at the ratings and no, you aren't another right-wing victim.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

And it's not just voter IDs... They are passing restrictions on early voting, early registration, closing polling places, reducing voter drives, removing programs for teenagers in schools, etc. The voter ID laws are just a fraction of the assault Republicans are trying to put on voting.

As opposed to having did people vote, illegals vote, having groups like the black panther party intimidate people at the building blocks. So if there is absolutely nothing that the Liberals and the Democrats have to hide, then everybody should have an ID to vote, you have a drivers license, usually you need a form of ID to purchase an item and use a credit card no difference here, that is if you don't have anything to hide.

How do you expect people to have a rational conversation with you if you can't even stay on topic? Obama never said, "Hey, let's give all Americans better access to healthcare," then came back a few months later and said, "Never mind."

That's not the issue, the issue was he flip-flopped, that's it.

But that's precisely what Trump is doing now. Now, yes, in the world we live in, all politicians have flip-flopped at one time or another in their careers, even Hillary. But Trump's wavering on wall is The Wall™ is borderline fraud. The Wall™ is FOUNDATION of his candidacy. He used The Wall™ shamelessly to elicit the kind of pigheaded, xenophobic hootin' and hollerin' that one might expect from an uneducated, white male demographic.

So white people are dumb if they don't have a college degree, not worthy to vote and and educated liberal minorities that have a degree are more worthy of casting a vote? Uh...so what are you trying to say here? When liberals use the race card to use It drive fear and anxiety, that's ok?

And he used The Wall™ again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again to "fire up" his base and give him enough populist feel-good momentum in the primaries to overwhelm more moderate GOP candidates. All of that came crasing to a halt when it became abundantly clear that his message only resonated with a minority of voters made up largely of pigheaded, xenophobic, hootin' and hollerin', uneducated, white males.

Sorry, but both sides play this game

He flipped his stance on The Wall™ to try an win over moderate GOP voters. Then when his base cried foul, he flopped back to his original assertion. When people called him on it, he said, "I'm thinking about it. Let me get back to you later this week." THAT'S flip-flopping and you know it. It's also an obnoxious manipulation of his base.

And it's no different than what the liberals to constantly and consistently in going on this make-believe and bogus lie that there is no such thing as a voter fraud is a complete ludicrous statement.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

@SuperLib

Thank you for your reply. Yes I understand that a process must be followed to obtain identification. However I still am in favor of requiring an ID to vote.

I do see your point and I am fully aware that it will be difficult for some people to obtain ID. However, I think the process should provide a means to accommodate people who have real difficulty with this. Yes - I think it is something worth paying for, again for those that have real difficulty.

The government wastes a ton of money on needless studies, surveys, etc. Some relate to military spending and some to studies that are really outrageous. Re-allocate some of this wasted money to help people get the proper ID to vote.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/Slideshow/2014/10/24/10-Outrageous-Examples-Government-Waste?page=0

Also, jurisdictions, such as Wisconsin, have free identification cards people can use for this. Again a process is required (filling out forms, etc.) however again I think it is worth spending money on this.

http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/dmv/license-drvs/how-to-apply/id-card.aspx

I do see your point, however in this case we just do not agree. Serious question - I wonder how many people in the United States eligible to vote (in most jurisdictions and in Federal Elections meaning U.S. citizens) lack this identification. Is there some study or something that shows this data?

In the end I am not sure how much it matters. With the advent of voting machines I feel that the system has other vulnerabilities which can be exploited in ways we have probably not even thought of.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@pointofview

Do you have specific examples of the media twisting Trump's words? Because it sounds like you're just making excuses. Like I said, he speaks in a dumbed down style that leaves little room for misinterpretation. Yes, the media focuses more on Trump because he draws more ratings, and Trump is happy to supply them with endless fodder. If you don't think Clinton's problems get enough attention, you should blame Trump. He should stick to serious policy points, but I don't think he has any.

@Tokyo-Engr

Re-allocate some of this wasted money to help people get the proper ID to vote.

So you want to add to the waste? Voter IDs is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. There is zero evidence of voter fraud being an actual thing. The problem isn't too many people voting, it's too few. A better way to spend that money would be to increase the number of voting stations. But the establishment in both parties benefit from less people voting.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

So you want to add to the waste? Voter IDs is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. There is zero evidence of voter fraud being an actual thing. The problem isn't too many people voting, it's too few. A better way to spend that money would be to increase the number of voting stations. But the establishment in both parties benefit from less people voting.

Ok, so if there isn't a problem and and both sides can't agree, the best way to resolve this is to push for every US voter to register and carry voter IDs. Problem solved.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

@bass4funk

Problem solved.

But it doesn't solve anything... It would only prevent the poor (often minorities) from voting, which is obviously the intention of those pushing for it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Ok, so if there isn't a problem and and both sides can't agree, the best way to resolve this is to push for every US voter to register and carry voter IDs. Problem solved.

Translation: "Ok, so if there isn't a problem, and both sides can't agree, the best way to resolve this is to do what the Republicans say. Problem solved."

And once again, that's a non-sequitur.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Ok, so if there isn't a problem and and both sides can't agree, the best way to resolve this is to push for every US voter to register and carry voter IDs. Problem solved.

Translation: "Ok, so if there isn't a problem, and both sides can't agree, the best way to resolve this is to do what the Republicans say. Problem solved."

And once again, that's a non-sequitur.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@MRBum

Thanks for the reply however I still do not agree. It is difficult to prove a problem does not exist as without no voter ID there is no mechanism that the person casting the ballot is actually who they claim they are. I think it is something worth doing and I do not think it would be expensive to do this. I do not think requiring an identification to vote is overly onerous.

What about the cases cited above? I believe that indicates there is greater than zero evidence that there is an issue.

One issue is that the states are responsible for the elections in each state (this was mentioned in the article indicating Homeland Security wants to take responsibility for US elections). Also in the U.S. those not in the country legally are allowed to vote in some state or local elections.

Anyway I believe the military trying to develop some type of Iron Man suit is pork and a waste (and I was in the military) however I do not believe validating that someone who is voting is who they claim to be is wasteful.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

But it doesn't solve anything... It would only prevent the poor (often minorities) from voting, which is obviously the intention of those pushing for it.

How would it prevent them from voting if they're "legal" citizens? Please, I'd really love to hear the spin on this one. Lol And every conservative wants every legal US citizen to vote.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

@Mrbum,

You would continue to disagree with him whether he did or didnt. He has plenty of policy. Youd have to be deaf and blind to not notice the media bias. Lots and lots of examples out there. Take a look.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@pointofview

So no examples, huh? Media bias is toward the corporations that pay them. It's all about ratings and money. Repeating Trump's ridiculous comments word for word and in full context without any twisting makes them money.

@bass4funk

How would it prevent them from voting if they're "legal" citizens? Please, I'd really love to hear the spin on this one. Lol And every conservative wants every legal US citizen to vote.

Empathy isn't normally a conservative trait, but just try imagining yourself in someone else's shoes. You don't live in the city, you're poor, you work your butt off everyday, you depend on other people for rides because you don't have a car, and you live miles away from any voting registration center. Those are the people types of people that would be affected, and plenty of them are legal.

But again, the whole issue is based on a non-existent problem. I apologize if I missed any examples you guys might have mentioned, but I've never heard of evidence for voter fraud. Most people don't bother to vote for themselves, let alone for someone else. There are plenty of examples of voter suppression though, most of them led by conservatives. Voter IDs are obviously just another example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Tokyo-Engr: I do see your point, however in this case we just do not agree. Serious question - I wonder how many people in the United States eligible to vote (in most jurisdictions and in Federal Elections meaning U.S. citizens) lack this identification. Is there some study or something that shows this data?

Probably not on the websites you frequent, but there are quite a few out there. Mostly there are estimates for each state based on the laws that they passed. That means you'll have to do some research. There are also quite a few studies, some by Republicans even, which point to it not being a problem.

Be careful with the minefield from the right. They have bogus stories talking about tens of thousands of people voting in two states, only to find that they just compared first and last names of people in two states and assumed it was the same person. Focus in on things like people actually arrested. Ignore anecdotes.

You could really skip all of that and just read about the recent court rulings in places like Wisconsin, North Carolina, Texas. The judges have some harsh language about burdening minorities and the poor disproportionately to solve a problem that doesn't exist, and they are openly questioning the motives of the politicians who crafted the legislation. It's that obvious.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

MrBum: I apologize if I missed any examples you guys might have mentioned, but I've never heard of evidence for voter fraud.

Here's 210 pages of evidence plus a cover page, in the PDF link repeated below (repeated from posts above).

Descriptions of 1 or 2 voter fraud convictions per page (the 1's are where a single state has only a single conviction listed, but as mentioned above, Alabama has six pages just for itself, so there's not going to be 50 pages with only 1 conviction described).

That's just one collected source. Doesn't googling 'dead person voting by state', finding the article about the reporter who found hundreds of dead people voting in Southern California by correlating death lists with voter lists (a single person's casual effort), and his report of the daughter who on hearing her dad had voted several times since his death years ago 'I sure hope they didn't have him voting for Republicans because he'd hate that.'

A dead person voting isn't voter fraud?

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/pdf/VoterFraudCases-8-7-15-Merged.pdf

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@turbotsat

I don't know if you know this, but the Heritage Foundation is an ultra-conservative think tank. Regardless, most of the cases in your link were of absentee ballot fraud, something IDs would do nothing to prevent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/

Yes, fraud occurs, but not the kind that IDs can stop. Cases of impersonation are extremely rare. Meanwhile, the ID laws disenfranchise eligible voters that are poorer and more often minorities (i.e., people who vote Democrat). This idea seems lost on you, but it isn't to Republicans.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/6-other-times-republicans-admitted-voting-restrictions-are-just-about-disenfranchising-democrats/

Voter IDs fit the conservative pattern of disenfranchising voters through gerrymandering, suppression, etc.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Empathy isn't normally a conservative trait,

I see, liberal empathy is more like, here's some money, now leave me alone and deal with your problems. Pretty much sums up what Blacks have been dealing with when it comes to the Democratic party.

but just try imagining yourself in someone else's shoes. You don't live in the city, you're poor, you work your butt off everyday, you depend on other people for rides because you don't have a car, and you live miles away from any voting registration center. Those are the people types of people that would be affected, and plenty of them are legal.

Has nothing to do with having an ID or are these people too poor to have ANY kind of ID to prove who they are, even if they are legal? What happens if they have to go to the hospital? How do we know what they are allergic against or what blood type they have? You need an ID and there's no way around that. Liberals could care less who's voting or who comes into the country, just as long as they can get votes, it's all good

But again, the whole issue is based on a non-existent problem. I apologize if I missed any examples you guys might have mentioned, but I've never heard of evidence for voter fraud. Most people don't bother to vote for themselves, let alone for someone else. There are plenty of examples of voter suppression though, most of them led by conservatives. Voter IDs are obviously just another example.

Well, I disagree and it seems like Democrats are always getting their buns tied in a knot talking about this. It's hilarious. If we go by that logic, then I submit to you, we do aways will ALL IDs! What the heck do we need them at all for? Let people do as they please, let illegals vote whenever and wherever they like, that seems to be the best option for Dems and libs. Just do whatever makes you feel good and screw the law.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

@bass4funk

are these people too poor to have ANY kind of ID to prove who they are, even if they are legal? What happens if they have to go to the hospital? How do we know what they are allergic against or what blood type they have? You need an ID and there's no way around that.

Yes, there are people that poor and that go through life without IDs. You must be very privileged if you can't even imagine that people like that exist.

Liberals could care less who's voting or who comes into the country, just as long as they can get votes, it's all good

Liberals are for a creating a situation that works for everybody. A lot of people tend to like that. Conservatives are for keeping the rich rich. Only the 1% and the people they managed to fool like that. That's why conservatives have to suppress votes, redraw district lines, and generally use all the dirty tactics they can get away with. You can disagree, but that doesn't change the truth.

we do aways will ALL IDs! What the heck do we need them at all for?

You're hysterical, and not in the "haha" sense.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Flippity floppity.., Trump's locked in the low info voters in the shallow end of the right wing pool. Now he's trying to see if he can con another group. No need to worry about the former feeling betrayed though. There's no amount of cognitive dissonance they can't spin their way out of. As he put it, he could shoot someone in Times Square and not lose voters...

Rush Limbaugh's Ultimate Betrayal of His Audience The talk-radio host claims that he never took Donald Trump seriously on immigration. He neglected to tell his immigration obsessed listeners...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/the-ultimate-rush-limbaugh-betrayal-of-his-audience/497996/?utm_source=atlfb

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Bass,

That's not the issue, the issue was [Obama] flip-flopped, that's it.

No, Obama didn't

Also, I don't think "flip-flop" means what you think it means. From Merriam-Webster:

flip–flop

1 : the sound or motion of something flapping loosely

2 a : a backward handspring b : a sudden reversal (as of policy or strategy)

3 : a usually electronic device or a circuit (as in a computer) capable of assuming either of two stable states

4 : a rubber sandal loosely fastened to the foot by a thong

Which one does it mean from these choices? Because it certainly doesn't mean it in the sense that you're using it with, well, anything.

In any case, you’re avoiding my point, which is that you complaining about ACA has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of actual flip-flopping. Which is what Trump is in the midst of.

So white people are dumb if they don't have a college degree . . . yada, yada, yada...

I never said that and you're deflecting here too. The point is and always has been that Trump adopted a deliberate political message that resonates phenomenally well with uneducated, white voters. Don’t believe me? Pick a poll, any poll. See who his most strident supporters are. It’s not women. It’s not voters with a college education. It’s not young people. It’s not any minority group. It’s not independents. It’s not Democrats. And increasingly it’s starting to look like moderate Republicans have given up on him.

His most loyal and rabid supporters are uneducated, white males and they support Trump because his first shot across the bow of the GOP primaries was,*"I will build a great wall -- and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me -- and I'll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words."*

“Mark my words.” Thank you, I don’t mind if I do. Let’s mark Trump’s words and then ask his supporters how they feel about him flip-flopping on a tent-pole promise now that’s it’s become abundantly clear that the support of uneducated, white males, no matter how passionate, isn't going to propel him into the White House.

Oh, wait. You’re one of those supporters. So, how do you feel about the flip-flopping? It’s okay. Don’t hold back.

Sorry, but both sides play this game

Not in the space of a week or even days. And not over multiple issues in a given campaign. And not over the entire course of that same campaign. Trump has brought the art of flip-flopping to a whole new level.

*[Trump lying to a very specific base in order to get their votes, then flip-flopping in the midst of a campaign when he realizes that strategy isn't going to work in the general election, then realizing flip-flopping isn't going to work either because his base isn't as dumb as he hoped they would be is . . . ]* no different than what the liberals do constantly and consistently in going on this make-believe and bogus lie that there is no such thing as a voter fraud is a complete ludicrous statement.

No, you're deflecting again. And that’s not flip-flopping (see definition above). That’s liberals disagreeing with a basic premise from the GOP that widespread voter fraud necessitates the creation of voter IDs.

No one ever said there's no such thing as voter fraud. That's emotion-driven exaggeration from you. What informed Americans have been saying is that voter fraud does not exist in sufficient quantities to justify A) creating voter IDs, and B) in the process, disenfranchising voters from their constitutionally protected right to vote. The voter fraud that exists does so to such a small degree as to be statistically insignificant in a national election.

Besides, all things being equal, logic would dictate that fraud occurs in equal parts from all sides, effectively negating any benefits one party might gain over the other. So it really doesn’t matter.

Oh, waaaaait a sec. . . Ahhh . . . Now I see what’s being left unsaid here. You’re suggesting that only Democrats participate in voter fraud. Ahhh . . . You clever one! In which case, that would mean voter ID laws actually are designed to target predominantly Democratic voters, i.e., poor Americans and minorities.

B-b-but wait!! That would be discriminatory and thus unconstitutional! And the GOP, if nothing else, is all about protecting the constitution, right?!

Damn… Another substantial pickle to extricate yourselves from. Good luck with that.

Ok, so if there isn't a problem and both sides can't agree, the best way to resolve this is to push for every US voter to register and carry voter IDs. Problem solved.

YOU'RE NOT LISTENING. Requiring voters to go out and get a voter ID in order to combat an insignificant problem creates a far greater negative affect by disenfranchising voters who have no intention of ever committing voter fraud than the impact of very voter fraud it claims to be fighting. It suppresses the American right to vote and it does so by intentionally targeting two key demographics: poor Americans and minority Americans. It’s also no coincidence that those two demographics don’t typically vote GOP.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Yes, there are people that poor and that go through life without IDs. You must be very privileged if you can't even imagine that people like that exist.

Then under No circumstances whatsoever should these people be allowed to vote, NO exceptions. If you are too poor, but still can drive, the police wouldn't allow that either, it's simply against the law.

Liberals are for a creating a situation that works for everybody. A lot of people tend to like that.

Ahhh, so that's why most Black neighborhoods and Latino neighborhoods are stricken with so much poverty, because Democrats have been doing a wonderful job over the last 50 years.

Conservatives are for keeping the rich rich. Only the 1% and the people they managed to fool like that.

Hmmmm....nowadays,Che mega rich are the spoiled millanials tech geeks from Yahoo, Apple, Amazon etc.,that have pockets of cash, they are liberal, Athiest a(often) as well as selfish. These are the new 1% And now you have the GOP fighting for the middle class, the roles have reversed.

That's why conservatives have to suppress votes, redraw district lines, and generally use all the dirty tactics they can get away with. You can disagree, but that doesn't change the truth.

What does that have to do with everyone needing an ID to vote? Talk about dirty....

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

@bass4funk

If you are too poor, but still can drive, the police wouldn't allow that either, it's simply against the law.

Then stop beating around the bush and say poor people shouldn't be allowed to vote. The voter fraud angle is nonsense.

What does that have to do with everyone needing an ID to vote?

Uhh... everything? Haven't you been paying attention? Voter ID laws prevent a certain sector of the population from voting. They're only pushed by conservatives to reduce the number of Democratic votes. They certainly don't solve the "problem" of voter fraud.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Then stop beating around the bush and say poor people shouldn't be allowed to vote. The voter fraud angle is nonsense.

It's not about economics, it's about Democrat defiance and unwillingness to admit that they are worried more about not being able to allow illegals to vote.

Uhh... everything? Haven't you been paying attention? Voter ID laws prevent a certain sector of the population from voting.

That's complete hogwash, I know a lot of poor people that voted over the years, it was never, ever an issue, until illegals were brought into the conversation, then it morphed into something racist about having one.

They're only pushed by conservatives to reduce the number of Democratic votes. They certainly don't solve the "problem" of voter fraud.

So if that's true, the best way is to meet n the middle. Both parties talk int out, Republicans in now way shape or form, ever stop anyone from voting and illegals cannot vote, until they are legal, both sides, No exceptions.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

MrBum: I don't know if you know this, but the Heritage Foundation is an ultra-conservative think tank. Regardless, most of the cases in your link were of absentee ballot fraud, something IDs would do nothing to prevent.

Someone else said that about Heritage Foundation and I replied to them with something like 'if you have a problem with their evidence just check it by googling the names from the case descriptions'.

O'Keefe's Project Veritas tried getting ballots without photo ID and were only caught once, when the pollworker actually knew the news columnist whose ballot PV were trying to get. The other times they were offered the ballot. And when they had a person pose as an illegal immigrant, instead of pollworkers telling her she couldn't vote, they had pollworkers trying to help her to vote. The government's response to PV has apparently been legal action against PV rather than promises to clean up their own act.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Voter fraud is not a problem. Something like 30 in one billion confirmed cases. Check arrest records on it!

The wall means more sales for ladders. It's a real joke. Has anyone heard of ladders? They have been around for thousands of years. They are very effective for going over walls. They have for last thousand years and will continue to do so for the next thousand.

Go Trump = Time to buy stock in ladder companies.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

. . . they had a person pose as an illegal immigrant

What the hell does that even mean? I don't think that could've sounded more racist if you tried. Par for the course, though.

I love how the justification for violating American civil rights has now morphed into, "We've got to stop all those illegals from Mexico from voting."

Priceless.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Typical left-wing reaction; Trump's immigration policy is pretty clear - he wants to stop people from illegally entering the US and staying there, thus violating laws that have always been in place. I am not sure what Clinton's stance on illegal immigration is, if she even has one. Or maybe it is just business as usual as it has been for the last several decades - just ignore the laws and don't even attempt to enforce them.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

is pretty clear Yes, build a wall. And the solution to that is ladders. Very old and effective idea to overcome a stupid one.

The solution to Trump's 20 billion dollar wall is simply a 20-dollar ladder. It's always work and it always will.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ts: ". . . they had a person pose as an illegal immigrant". LFRAgain: "What the hell does that even mean? I don't think that could've sounded more racist if you tried. Par for the course, though."

What do you mean 'what does that mean'?

The article I read said Project Veritas had a woman pretend to be a "Brazilian illegal immigrant" (as stated in the article), that she asked pollworkers if she could vote, and that they tried to help her to vote, even though they thought her to be an illegal immigrant. On video! À la the Acorn stings. (She didn't actually vote, as that would be illegal.)

But what would be the use of her pretending to be a legal resident?

Are you living in some area where it's now considered racist to use the term 'illegal immigrant'?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

How many people have been arrested for selling votes?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

turbostat,

You're right and I jumped the gun. My apologies.

I went to the website you mentioned and watched the video. Your account of what happened and what actually happened differ in a few small ways. One, the people answering the questions for the woman posing and an illegal immigrant were not poll workers. They were campaign volunteers for both Democratic and Republican candidates on the ballot. Also, they did not "help" the woman vote, as you claim. She asked if she could vote, they confirmed that she had the required identification and registration documents, and told her she could -- for, in one case, "Try and see what happens." That's not the same as actively helping someone to vote.

Also, see my point in an earlier post about the negating effects of fraud happening on all sides.

But the other issue that stares us in the face after watching this video is that the woman posing as an illegal immigrant went in with the backstory that she had valid ID. That flies directly in the face of arguments suggesting the use of voter IDs will mitigate voter fraud. Clearly, that isn't the case.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

LFRAgain: ... My apologies. ...

Thank you ... re the campaign workers vs pollworkers, you are right on that, I was speaking from memory of an article, not from watching the video.

But an article with the video says the backstory is due to 145 non-citizens on the voter rolls, who filled out the voter registration forms given with their driver's license applications. And the linked video includes a statue defining assisting non-citizens to vote as a felony (by anyone including campaign workers).

And googling 'Project Veritas pollworker' also turns up pollworkers helping PV journalists to vote (just not the Brazilian person). Just a couple of the links below, for Brooklyn and New Hampshire, but the NH link has out-of-state campaign workers saying they had falsely claimed NH residence so they could vote there, and a pollworker nudging the journalist to claim residency based on the journalist visiting a friend in the state. And the Brooklyn pollworkers saying they don't check addresses, to a journalist and to a van full of journalists claiming to be from out of town.

Basically, in "lax" voting areas you can vote as many times as you want, limited only by your travel time and time spent at polling places on Election Day. They will not be checking your claim to an in-district address and they will not be checking your photo ID, so in some districts you can use as many fake names and addresses as you want. If you're halfway bright and prepared, you won't be leaving any actual evidence that would indicate your real ID.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/james-okeefes-project-veritas-exposes-voter-fraud-north-carolina/

... Last week, The Winston-Salem Journal reported there is a list of 145 people who have been granted President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status in North Carolina and have also appeared on the voter rolls. They note the actual number of illegal voters could be much higher.

http://projectveritas.com/2016/04/22/chaos-in-new-york-polls-brooklyn-poll-worker-caught-committing-probable-voter-fraud-felony/

http://projectveritasaction.com/video/undercover-video-shows-it%E2%80%99s-still-very-easy-commit-voter-fraud-new-hampshire

(..), Bernie Sanders Campaign Staffer: It’s incredibly easy. Like, I think in many ways New Hampshire is incredibly proud of their first in the nation primary, and for that reason they make all of these really lax laws, surrounding voting, so people can, like, take advantage of it.

Journalist: Why doesn’t just every volunteer, like, ever in the office, just…

Staffer: Bernie Sanders, Campaign Staffer: I think they all have honestly. And like, all of our paid canvassers have done it. It’s very, very easy.

Journalist: It almost seems like it’s more, it’s better to have people from out of state. Because they can do that and it’s like more votes.

Staffer: Yeah. Like I said. I don’t know the legality of it. Perhaps it’s voter fraud.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No arrest record = no paper trail = no confirmed story of voter fraud. The only way you can confirm if voter fraud exists is to look at arrest records. And how many are there?

The only credible number I heard was 30 in 1 billion. These are confirmed with arrest records and such and not internet videos which were fabricated like above links.

Want to show me links regarding voter fraud I can believe? Please show links to public records. Mugshots are public record now. We are waiting....

Even if voter fraud does exist it is so small it doesn't matter. And it could go for both sides anyway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

" Trump has seemed to be in full indecision mode." - according to the left-wing media, of course. But as is usually the case in the way the liberal media spins and distorts things that is completely untrue. Like him or hate him, Trump's policy on undocumented immigrants has been very clear right from the start - stop illegal immigrants from coming over the border in the first place and to deport all the illegal immigrants already here without documentation. Unlike Clinton, who doesn't seem to have policies on the issue.

Most countries in the world have such laws - stop people from crossing their border, and returning the ones who do to their country of origin. The US has such laws and I cannot fathom why the US has not enforced them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How many people have been arrested for selling votes?

12.

In 1889.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

according to the left-wing media Well, the right wing media fails to mention that ladders have been around for thousands of years and are very effective at going over walls. And how about those shovels? They dig pretty well, don't they? Worked for El Chapo. Again, the 20 dollar solution to Trump's 20Billion dollar wall.

deport all the illegal immigrants already here without documentation Do you understand that Reagan inked 3M green card amnesty? Trump could pull a sneaky. After all, he has used illegals before and they worked for him. There might be a Trump amnesty.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oregon is one state that automatically registers voters when they get their driver's licenses. However, Republicans have fought against it--why is that? Do they have something to do with each other? Suppose someone doesn't want to combine their voter registration with driver's license registration? Now you're forcing them to be registered as a voter if they want to legally drive a vehicle.

AMAZING how right wingers twist things around! What is this "combine" business, no it "is now that you have a license, would also like to register to vote? We have the paper work ready now." What is wrong with that? And what is wrong with early voting, and why shut down polling places in areas that blacks live--all repig policies. Disgusting.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@MrBum,

There are plenty. But you are bias towards Trump so you have the inability to listen to them.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Trump is unsure because he's full of BS, and doesn't care to understand information and facts. Fareed Zakaria said he was a BS artist, worse than liar, and he defined why.

Zakaria quoting Frankfurt: Telling a lie is an act with sharp focus. It is designed to insert a particular falsehood at a specific point. In order to invent a lie at all, the teller of a lie must think he knows what is true. But someone engaging in BS is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all. His focus is panoramic rather than particular...with more spacious opportunities for improvisation, color and imaginative play. This is left a matter of craft than of art. Hence the familiar notion of the 'bullshit artist.’'

Liars and truth tellers are both acutely aware of facts and truths. Bullshit artists have lost all connection to reality and by virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of truth, than lies are.

Trump in a nutshell, and why something like having a base policy change, back and forth, would be typical of him.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"Trump's locked in the low info voters"

Yeah, gcbel, we deplorables are laughing at the superior intellect.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yeah, gcbel, we deplorables are laughing at the superior intellect.

You group yourself in with them? Are you one of the ones that believes abolishing slavery was a mistake?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, Stranger, I'm with Abraham Lincoln's party, you know, the party that wanted to abolish slavery whilst the Democrats wanted to keep their slaves.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

No, Stranger

Then why are you grouping yourself in with people who think slavery should not have been abolished?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"Then why are you grouping yourself in with people who think slavery should not have been abollished?"

I ain't! Remember, Hillary said half, not a small percentage of Trump supporters are in her basket of deplorables.

A very small percentage of Trump supporters think slavery should not have been abolished, heck, I'm sure Hillary has her share of these knuckleheads too.

And this is interesting: "Ingraham, Cain rip Obama's final United Nations speech" ( Fox News )

Oh, and this: "Hillary Supporter Stunned By Woman Of Color, Kshama Sawant Speaks Truth" ( Jimmy Dore )

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I ain't! Remember, Hillary said half, not a small percentage of Trump supporters are in her basket of deplorables.

So which are you then? One of the racists? The bigots? Which type of deplorable are you admitting to be?

A very small percentage of Trump supporters think slavery should not have been abolished, heck, I'm sure Hillary has her share of these knuckleheads too.

One in five is not very small. And I've not heard any percentage of Hillary supporters who believe this, can you point to something that supports your theory?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"One in five"

Where do you get this one in five Trump supporters think slavery should not have been abolished?

That is nonsense. I know a bunch of people who are going to vote for Trump and none of them think that.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Where do you get this one in five Trump supporters think slavery should not have been abolished?

It came from exit polls: http://time.com/4236640/donald-trump-racist-supporters/

So I'm still curious, which of the group of deplorables do you group yourself with?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites