You mean that the media outlets haven’t chosen to report on illegal aliens from Canada, or Ireland, or China? I’m shocked. :rolleyes:
There is a difference between LEGAL immigrants, those who abide by the immigration laws of the U.S., and ILLEGAL immigrants who’s first act is to violate the laws of the U.S…
No 1st world country allows ILLEGAL immigration. Why should the U.S. allow ILLEGAL immigration?
When the illegal alien, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, first illegally entered the U.S. he was a lawbreaker. The fifth time he illegally entered the U.S., he was a 7-time felon, a criminal. He chose to, once again, return to the sanctuary city of SF. Why? Because they protect criminal illegal aliens like him. The sheriff claims it makes the city safer??? The policy certainly didn’t make Kathryn Steinle safer. She was shot in the back by an illegal alien who should never have been allowed into the U.S…
Unfortunately, his support dropped to single digits in the Sunday portion of that survey. (He was up at around 28 percent in the majority of it, as crazy as that sounds.) I’m crossing my fingers and hoping for a rebound.
I think the key point is that Trump has shown that the surefire vote-getter for the Republicans is Mexican-bashing. The fast way to stand out from the rest of the short-bus riders is to dive into that cesspool, and don’t think they don’t all know it. But ¡Jeb! is the only one who cannot, and therefore won’t. That may make him this year’s Electable Sane Guy, like McCain and Romney vs. a pack of hyenas the last couple of times. It also makes him the answer to a future trivia question, but one thing at a time. And meanwhile, Hillary can tut-tut and my-goodness right ahead of all of it.
I hate to keep disillusioning you guys, but Trump isn’t going anywhere. He’s already maxed out, and CAN’T increase his voter share any more. His negatives are extremely high, which means there’s absolutely no way he can appeal to voters who don’t already love him.
And even the people who THINK they love him won’t stick with him any longer than they stuck with Herman Cain 4 years ago.
But if he were to get five percent as a third party general election candidate, that would completely doom the GOP nominee. Heck, even two or three percent in swing states would hurt, bigtime. (I think they are already doomed; but this would provide extra doom, LOL.)
So, again, what about those illegal immigrants from places other than Latin America? They are breaking the laws of the US just as surely as Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez is. And again, where is the outcry, from any politician (I never mentioned the media; that was all you) whatsoever?
From the other side of the aisle I can’t help but fully agree. I can live with a small chunk of his probable poll numbers. His statements are usually disjointed, internally inconsistent, and borderline incoherent when looked at in their entirety. I can see some just responding to him on the context of being aggressive against the establishment. That’s a more minor problem. The one’s that actually agree with the main body of what he’s most likely saying…
No Trump won’t be nominated. But he provides evidence for moderates of the soaring level of crazy within the Republican electorate. Which is why I treat his candidacy with glee. Same with Ted Cruz.
I see you’ve altered your question to drop references to overstayed visas and immigrants specifically coming from Canada, but since it’s essentially the same question as before, given that we don’t seem to have many people flooding into the country illegally over the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines, I’ll repost the answer from post 67 since you seem to have missed it:
Do, you want the LSM to censor Trump? Not report newsworthy things he’s saying? Why? Because it is embarrassing?
Don’t you think his backers would have a fit?
If one of the other 17 clowns would say something interesting, they’d get covered too. But newspapers are too think to cover all of them. And I guess most of them are too boring and irrelevant for even the 24-hour news stations to cover. They did get some coverage when they announced.
Are you mad at the Republicans for limiting debate participants also?
Mad bombers get coverage, and Trump is the Mad Bomber in the Republican field. I have considered that he could be a Democrat in disguise - the Dems could hardly dream of someone wrecking the Republican brand better than Trump.
Negatives to you and me and in the general are positives in the Republican nomination race. If he were a normal candidate he wouldn’t be getting any money and would dry up, but he doesn’t need any money, at least to start.
I don’t think Cain was ever that serious. He slipped into doing skits for TDS way too easily. Trump is serious. Crazy, but serious.
Hahahaha. Do you check your elected representatives website(s), or call their office(s) for information? Or do you wait for the media outlets to tell you what your elected representatives positions are?
LEGAL aliens are welcome.
ILLEGAL aliens are not welcome and should be sent home.
Criminals entering the U.S. as ILLEGAL aliens should be jailed.
As a lifelong Democrat I will admit that my position is definitely informed by my party affiliation and by Latinos’ voting tendencies. If the immigrants coming in here undocumented were giving birth to children who became overwhelmingly Republican voters, like used to be true for Cubans, I would be agitating to build a better wall, LOL. So I don’t blame Republicans for feeling alarmed and frustrated about this.
Now, obviously I don’t want my Democratic politicians to say anything like this - in fact if they are asked, they should vigorously deny any such motivations or inconsistency in philosophy.
Heck no. In a super crowded field, IF he held the 24% he supposedly has (and he won’t), that would be enough to win him a few primaries. But as soon as the also-rans start dropping out, SOMEONE is going to pick up the Jindal vote, the Kasich vote, the Huckabee vote, et al.
Trump is not the guy to win those votes. Neither is Jeb. The conservative wing will eventually coalesce around someone who’s now trailing. Walker, maybe.
To buttress my argument about not wanting racist votes, here’s an interesting poll showing a race between Clinton and Bush, and one showing Clinton vs. Bush vs. Trump.
As you’d expect, Trump takes the vast majority of votes from Bush. But Clinton also loses some support in the 3-way, going from 50% to 46%. Now imagine Hillary Clinton saying that she didn’t want the votes of people considering voting for her but who would prefer to vote for Donald Trump. It’s the difference between 50% and 46%. That’s the difference between victory and defeat in a two person race.
adaher, I think your advice to politicians to not piss off vast swaths of the voting public is stronger than your argument about the principles of representative democracy. Also, by adding the qualification, “…unless the group is so small as to not be relevant,” I’ve been stymied. Counter examples are FDR going against the monied interest (electorally small), GHWBush thumbing his nose at atheists (electorally non-trivial, though he probably didn’t recognize that while improvising, assuming the event happened: it may or may not have) and the David Duke example (naming a person, and not a block of voters). I got nothin’.
Insulting people happens all the time. Bush never said he didn’t want the atheist vote. And I guess we agree that’s bad politics. I just go a little further and say it’s anti-democratic. Saying you don’t want a vote, IMO, is equivalent to saying that certain people just shouldn’t vote at all. Especially if all the candidates tacitly agree that they don’t want a certain group’s votes.
See what I’m saying? Clinton says she doesn’t want racist votes. Bush says he doesn’t want racist votes. The implication is that racists just shouldn’t vote.
