When do the ends justify the means in government and politics?

[joko104]

OK, so what, exactly, is being done about the 12M to 20M illegal immigrants now living and working in the US?

The lame talk of continuing to deport "the worst of the worst" leaves 95% of them unfettered by any fear of working even on Trump's own golf courses. Until I see a demand for a universal annual eVerify mandate, coupled with changes to the federal income tax code preventing the deduction of any direct labor costs not tied to W-2 or 1099 employees with current annual eVerify certification, then the republicants are joining the demorats in creating a sanctuary country for the use of illegal immigrant labor.

I agree that neither party wanting e-verify does mean they want the cheap laborers. Mass immigration in the USA has never been for humanitarian reasons. It has always been for cheap labor to keep wages to the bare minimum by giving all power to employers due to a glut of low skill employees.

 

[Helix]

Politics has so changed to new levels of viciousness and truth - both sides - virtually irrelevant to anything you could be right.

it has gotten pretty bad. a two party system probably wasn't ever going to be anything but fistfights. it is a potentially fatal flaw in our republic. we need an update, IMO.

 

[joko104]

The only place your kind of thinking could help a Republican candidate is in a Republican stronghold area where, frankly, any Republican candidate wouldn’t need your help to begin with.

Your entire self described mindset is Dems/libs bad, Republican/conservative good, and your notions of who/what Dems/libs are and want is completely distorted.

In order for any campaign to be successful in reaching out to the most people is knowing who they are and what they want. All you have shown is an understanding of Trump mentality.

Among the most powerful - if not THE most - is the concept of "them versus us." Illegal immigrants are "them." So, are you going to vote for "them" or "us." This is them vs. us at the most simplistic level. Elections are decided at the most simplistic level by the most simplistic levels.

That is why, for example, even though the 2 year old immigrant child to die in US custody did so being weeks in a hospital. Exactly ever rational thought says our government and that hospital did everything they could to save that child's life - and certain more than would have been otherwise. Still, the Democratic Party will claim Trump killed another child - because caring about children also is a core emotional response devoid of the actual facts and what they real meant.

Unfortunately, politics has become as simplistic as the other party is evil at the most simple level of accusations. That's why many of my messages are such absolute and simplistic condemnations of the Democratic Party.

The side that will win the 2020 elections is the side that has the least number of Mr. Yuck stickers on it.

 

[Individual]

On the subject of immigration, should we have immigration laws?
Currently, we have people entering the U.S. both legally and illegally.
IMO, those who enter illegally should by law be deported quickly and without any recourse. Those who enter legally, and overstay their visa, should face stiff fines and possible deportation.
I'm not sure how legal entry by non-US citizens is handled currently, but where I live abroad all non citizens are issued a small paper containing a unique number stapled to their passport, which must be returned when leaving the Country. When leaving the Country, a fine is applied should you have overstayed your visa, which I once was charged for a 1 day overstay. As a permanent resident, I must report to an immigration of every 90 days to confirm my residence, and every year must again report to immigration with proof of adequate income from abroad or a bank balance adequate to provide for my needs for an additional year. Failure to appear, results in either a fine or a fine and deportation depending on how many days past the deadline to appear have passed.
It is my belief that if we have laws, they should be enforced without emotion.

 

[joko104]

Close to the same level of knowledge, with the 3rd grader having a slight edge, and lagging well behind in maturity.

Calling President Trump an evil genius maybe would make sense. But a 2nd grader becoming president having never even been in politics is particularly impressive, isn't it?

But, then, it is possible that is those voters with no more level of knowledge and maturity than a 3rd grade might be that middle group of undecided that will decide the election. I mean that seriously. How many black and Latino high school drop outs can Democrats get to the polls? How many high school dropout white people can Republicans get to the polls? Who gets the least knowledgeable voters vote will always decide close elections.

That is very hard from some people to grasp. Us on this forum? We are all 100% irrelevant in any election other than our partisan leaning. Have you ever seen anyone on this forum change when candidate for president they are supporting for the general election? I haven't. Billion words on the forum, all signifying nothing in elections.

 

[Individual]

On the subject of the economy, should the Federal government keep it growing by debasing our currency and increasing the Federal debt owed?
State governments should be where debts, if any, are allowed to accumulate, and the citizens of each State should be held responsible for the repayment of the debts they allow their respective government to incur, with interest.
IMO, our Federal elections have become primarily based upon which politician is most likely to bring home more bacon, perpetually increasing Federal spending and debt.

 

[joko104]

it has gotten pretty bad. a two party system probably wasn't ever going to be anything but fistfights. it is a potentially fatal flaw in our republic. we need an update, IMO.

The "Founders" were skeptical of pure democracy, why the created they electoral college. Remember, true democracy was a wild and crazy idea - that uneducated peasants could run a country. I don't think they can - and I think we're seeing that reality. It's becoming just a name-calling, fear mongering, simpleton contest by politicians using crafted talking points saying anything - while really basically in the employment of special interests because that's where the money comes from for their campaigns (and their own pockets).

In theory, we wouldn't vote for president. We would vote for who we thought wisest or best to do so are our representatives (ie electors). A person is required to have a law degree to be a lawyer, degree to be a doctor. Qualifications to be a licensed plumber or electrician. Maybe some course completion requirement before being a candidate for elector?

In my opinion, legislatures should have continued to select US Senators.

Electors should be 1 per Congressional district - not based upon states. The ballot for president would not have candidates for president's name, but candidates to be Electors. While presidential candidates still would campaign, hopefully by selecting electors our presidents would be selected by more knowledgeable people via the Electoral college. Now people just see the electoral college as odd and the electors themselves as namelessly irrelevant to anything.

Knowing it would never fly legally or politically, I also believe a high school degree or equivalent should be required to vote. I would like to see a return to election day is ONE day - with strict limitations on absentee voting - people in the hospital or in the military. There isn't really an election day now, but an election season.

 

[Helix]

The "Founders" were skeptical of pure democracy, why the created they electoral college. Remember, true democracy was a wild and crazy idea - that uneducated peasants could run a country. I don't think they can - and I think we're seeing that reality. It's becoming just a name-calling, fear mongering, simpleton contest by politicians using crafted talking points saying anything - while really basically in the employment of special interests because that's where the money comes from for their campaigns (and their own pockets).

In theory, we wouldn't vote for president. We would vote for who we thought wisest or best to do so are our representatives (ie electors). A person is required to have a law degree to be a lawyer, degree to be a doctor. Qualifications to be a licensed plumber or electrician. Maybe some course completion requirement before being a candidate for elector?

In my opinion, legislatures should have continued to select US Senators.

Electors should be 1 per Congressional district - not based upon states. The ballot for president would not have candidates for president's name, but candidates to be Electors. While presidential candidates still would campaign, hopefully by selecting electors our presidents would be selected by more knowledgeable people via the Electoral college. Now people just see the electoral college as odd and the electors themselves as namelessly irrelevant to anything.

Knowing it would never fly legally or politically, I also believe a high school degree or equivalent should be required to vote. I would like to see a return to election day is ONE day - with strict limitations on absentee voting - people in the hospital or in the military. There isn't really an election day now, but an election season.

i don't support the electoral college anymore. i do agree with Washington's farewell speech, though. i think that we have a lot of work to do when it comes to correcting the system, and i have little optimism that we will do so.

 

[joko104]

On the subject of the economy, should the Federal government keep it growing by debasing our currency and increasing the Federal debt owed?
State governments should be where debts, if any, are allowed to accumulate, and the citizens of each State should be held responsible for the repayment of the debts they allow their respective government to incur, with interest.
IMO, our Federal elections have become primarily based upon which politician is most likely to bring home more bacon, perpetually increasing Federal spending and debt.

Federalization of government programs rewards bad state and local government. It also federalizes the country, eliminating community diversity. Maybe a person does want to live where there are piles of government services and safety nets - but at the price of high taxes, mountains of ordinances, lots of police and costly property. Or maybe a person doesn't want that all.

I was at a city council meeting in another very small city, a clearly low income citizenry and overall quite rundown town. The major was this late 80s old country boy type, very cranky and grumpy.

A small group had a petition for the city to fix a road, complaining it takes a 4x4 to drive it.

Grumpy old mayor: "My god I'm sick of listening to you people whining all the time. Taxes are already too high. What the hell is wrong with all of you? Just being lazy asses? If you want to fix the potholes, get you lazy asses to Home Depot, get some concrete and fix your own damn road!"

Next, a new young police chief, likely very low pay. He was the entire police department other than a part time officer to be on call for emergencies if the chief wasn't available. The chief had gotten a drug sniffing dog. Said he'll take care of dog, but wanted the city to buy the dog food.

Grump old mayor: "Oh hell no. We don't need no goddamn dog sniffing up ladies skirts and men's crotches. Get rid of the damn dog!"

The council meeting ended with the conclusion being the city council wasn't going to do anything at all about anything. "You people, just go home."

I asked that police chief how many people were in the old city jail. With a disgusted voice he said "no one."

There was something I liked about that cranky old mayor. Everything in the town was cheap. Houses were cheap. Taxes were cheap. Wages low. Services all but non-existence, but no local government on your back either. People living very simple lives. Lots of elderly on low fixed income. The reason to minimize property taxes was obvious - the town's people mostly barely live hand to mouth on social security or modest pensions. If that is not the kind of town you want to live in - live somewhere else.

Shouldn't people have a right to live somewhere where there are very few rules and regulations, very few government services and absolutely minimal taxes? Cities and states should come up with their own money for basically everything. If you don't like the level of services - and level of taxes - higher or lower - go live somewhere else - rather than we all pay for everyone else. It isn't distributed fairly and why should people of my city pay for people in Los Angeles or rural Mississippi?

 

[Individual]

How so, closing our border accomplishes nothing, do you know how much trade crosses our border daily.
So maybe you meant to say secure instead of close, now who is being foolish.....

I didn't say anything about closing legitimate entry points, simply the border where there are no law enforcement checks.

But much more to the point, we need to begin aggressively enforcing our immigration laws.

 

[AlbqOwl]

True about derailing. If not having a good reply, they either just repeat some generic insults about Trump or personal attack or both.

I hope you are correct that truth and just win in the long run. We do need to stay on message.

All anybody, including the President, can do is try. But I have hope that if enough of us try, we can accomplish more than we ever imagined.

 

[JasperL]

I've stated before, love or hate Donald Trump, but he is a brilliant strategist. Not just in politics too, but in life. Everything he did. Most impressive personal history I've ever read of in modern times across his entire life.

Democrats can not win the immigration issue nationwide, only in irrelevant Democratic stronghold states.

That's hilarious. Man is/was a literal trust fund baby bailed out time and again by daddy, and who was gifted or inherited $100s of millions. And he still failed so badly and so often, even after screwing anyone and everyone he could, including especially those businesses too small to fight back, that no lenders in America would touch him, and he's such a **** developer that he now just lends his name to projects for the most part while other more talented people do the actual work. He's like a fat and old Kardashian, and not nearly as smart.

 

[joko104]

That's hilarious. Man is/was a literal trust fund baby bailed out time and again by daddy, and who was gifted or inherited $100s of millions. And he still failed so badly and so often, even after screwing anyone and everyone he could, including especially those businesses too small to fight back, that no lenders in America would touch him, and he's such a **** developer that he now just lends his name to projects for the most part while other more talented people do the actual work. He's like a fat and old Kardashian, and not nearly as smart.

Slinging out insults is nothing. His history is impressive in terms of obtaining his goals in life at the moment. He didn't live his life to accumulate wealth. He lived his live to use wealth to get him doing what he wanted to do in life.

When he wanted women, he created the Miss Universe pageant.
When he wanted to be in the jet set, jetting around the world to rich people's stuff, he bought an airline.
To hang around rich yachting people - and all the beautiful women, rich people and servants this brings, he bought a yacht.
To fine dining he ventured into steaks and wines to be within the circle.
To be in the bright lights crowd, he bought a Casino.
For fame, he became one of the most popular TV celebrities on a show that entirely about him as who he is - Donald Trump - the most brilliant businessman deciding who is good enough to work for him at a theoretical competition.
Lots of women all along the way. Apparently avoided assault charges and STDs. So successful in that endless goal.

Finally, he's an old man in his 70s. What did he want to do for his retirement? Be president.

Exactly everyone - I mean every BUT his 1st Ex wife - said he can never possibly even be seriously considered by anyone to be president. However, his first wife Ivana when asked what she thought if him running, her response was immediately. She didn't know if he would run for president. "But if he did he would win." That's all she said and kept going her way.

So he has become president as he wanted to be.

Is he an evil man? If so, he's an evil genius obtaining every evil think in life he wanted when he wanted it. Have you obtained being where you want to be in all your entire adult life - and anywhere near his level? Lots and lots of people inherent lots and lots of millions of dollars in value. Look what Trump did with his to get what he wants?

 

[Craig234]

Or they are far less likely to get caught being they are inherently in hiding as a life style.

Oh, that's it. When one lie about their crime rate is shown a lie by the facts, make up another lie that they're secretly just good at crime so getting away with it while American citizens are just not good at it so they get caught more. Idiocy and dishonesty, as usual.

 

[joko104]

Oh, that's it. When one lie about their crime rate is shown a lie by the facts, make up another lie that they're secretly just good at crime so getting away with it while American citizens are just not good at it so they get caught more. Idiocy and dishonesty, as usual.

:lamo

 

[Craig234]

Slinging out insults is nothing. His history is impressive in terms of obtaining his goals in life at the moment. He didn't live his life to accumulate wealth. He lived his live to use wealth to get him doing what he wanted to do in life.

When he wanted women, he created the Miss Universe pageant.
When he wanted to be in the jet set, jetting around the world to rich people's stuff, he bought an airline.
To hang around rich yachting people - and all the beautiful women, rich people and servants this brings, he bought a yacht.
To fine dining he ventured into steaks and wines to be within the circle.
To be in the bright lights crowd, he bought a Casino.
For fame, he became one of the most popular TV celebrities on a show that entirely about him as who he is - Donald Trump - the most brilliant businessman deciding who is good enough to work for him at a theoretical competition.
Lots of women all along the way. Apparently avoided assault charges and STDs. So successful in that endless goal.

Finally, he's an old man in his 70s. What did he want to do for his retirement? Be president.

Exactly everyone - I mean every BUT his 1st Ex wife - said he can never possibly even be seriously considered by anyone to be president. However, his first wife Ivana when asked what she thought if him running, her response was immediately. She didn't know if he would run for president. "But if he did he would win." That's all she said and kept going her way.

So he has become president as he wanted to be.

Is he an evil man? If so, he's an evil genius obtaining every evil think in life he wanted when he wanted it. Have you obtained being where you want to be in all your entire adult life - and anywhere near his level? Lots and lots of people inherent lots and lots of millions of dollars in value. Look what Trump did with his to get what he wants?

Didn't read all of that, but it sounds like the blathering of someone without morals, the sort of praise you could heap on Pablo Escobar or Carlos Marcello as 'living the dream' with massive billionaire criminal empires and no regard for the wrongs. What weak people Republicans are worshiping such immoral people. No, trump's crimes aren't as bad, but they're bad and many, including decades of tax fraud and supporting Putin's crimes.

 

[joko104]

Even if Trump is a criminal:

1. He's not a violent criminal in terms of the ordinary meaning of violent. Possibly abusive on occasion.

2. If he is a criminal, he is a money criminal.

Today at a C-store I stop at almost every day for a donut, a new cashier was working out of an open cash register drawer. For one he used a calculator. The other 2 before me he just knew the price. So there is another money criminal. Probably a few million different kinds of theft in the USA every day. The child stealing some coins. Shoplifters.

I'm not a thief, but if I had to pick being stealing out of a cash register or tricking banks and investors into giving me tens of millions of dollars in loans because I want to be in the jet set and buy an airline - fast talking past former business failures - I'd pick the latter. Which one would you pick?

Even if ultimately he were sent to prison for the rest of his life, at his age it still be correct to note the extraordinary success of his crime spree and note how much he personally enjoyed using his loot. This would also assure people will know the name of Trump as having been president for being imprisoned for however many centuries the county continues to exist, taught in schools. Just like people will remember Nixon longer than Carter. I think Trump would like that long of fame, even if infamy.

I've stated often Trump is the world's greatest and most successful attention whore. It's called promotion, that's what advertising is. He advertises himself. Do you agree with that?

(However, I don't believe Trump is a criminal, he's a businessman. All great businessmen took huge gambles with other people's money - and it not rare their history of both great successes and great failures. Some would tell of failures is inherently necessary for having great successes. Business, after all, is a crap shoot. Yeah, you think it's a good business idea. Only one way to find out. I truly admire Trump for that perspective. That's what builds things.)

 

[Craig234]

But you see I don't see the President as a monster at all. I see that kind of perception of him as an inexplicable and irrational aspect of what we are now describing as TDS. And neither of the Roosevelts who became Presidents were perfect either, above suspicion of misconduct, infallible in their instincts and reactions to things or whatever. But they were politicians to the core. President Trump isn't. He just isn't wired to maintain a less than effective status quo or do things just because they've always been done that way. And that is one of the reasons he is so hated by the left and even the permanent political class in his own party.

Those who support him don't support him because he's perfect. He isn't. We support him because we believe he shares a vision that we believe in and has the guts and instincts to accomplish it. We haven't had that in a President in a very long time.

That's an honest post. I think you are the victim of a con - remember when Bush was sold to the country as some sort of business mastermind also, "the first MBA president" with his Harvard MBA, hyping his 'entrepreneurial skills' as co-owner of the Texas Rangers and on the board of an energy company - despite more honest people pointing out he was rather an imbecile, whose role for the Rangers was just a sort of minor celebrity 'meet and greet' son of a former president, and that company
saying his only contributions on the board were the occasional dirty joke, and using insider information to sell his stock before it crashed, which his father then prevented investigation of by the SEC - but Republicans fell under his spell - though they're now more willing to not praise him, now that the hype machine no longer hypes him, though I haven't seen one admit their mistakes or that they were conned.

I really do understand, somewhat, the con you describe, why people fall for the lies that have built up trump - the books people wrote for him to make him look good at business, the reality tv show written to make him look powerful, the myths he's created to try to make his 'brand' valuable, the lies he's told to con people about being on their side.

But understanding that doesn't change that it's a con - that the right wingers who fall for it, which is most though thousands of Republicans saw through the con and have been anti-trump and/or left the party, and the reason is not, as the trump cult thinks, that they're 'corrupt' and 'establishment'.

The trump cult isn't even entirely wrong. trump IS a 'wild card', just not in the good way they think, and their hatred of the 'corrupt establishment' is largely correct - though they can't tell the difference between the actual monsters like the Koch brothers and the phony ones like everyone who has investigated trump's crimes, who he attacks.

 

[joko104]

That's an honest post. I think you are the victim of a con - remember when Bush was sold to the country as some sort of business mastermind also, "the first MBA president" with his Harvard MBA, hyping his 'entrepreneurial skills' as co-owner of the Texas Rangers and on the board of an energy company - despite more honest people pointing out he was rather an imbecile, whose role for the Rangers was just a sort of minor celebrity 'meet and greet' son of a former president, and that company
saying his only contributions on the board were the occasional dirty joke, and using insider information to sell his stock before it crashed, which his father then prevented investigation of by the SEC - but Republicans fell under his spell - though they're now more willing to not praise him, now that the hype machine no longer hypes him, though I haven't seen one admit their mistakes or that they were conned.

I really do understand, somewhat, the con you describe, why people fall for the lies that have built up trump - the books people wrote for him to make him look good at business, the reality tv show written to make him look powerful, the myths he's created to try to make his 'brand' valuable, the lies he's told to con people about being on their side.

But understanding that doesn't change that it's a con - that the right wingers who fall for it, which is most though thousands of Republicans saw through the con and have been anti-trump and/or left the party, and the reason is not, as the trump cult thinks, that they're 'corrupt' and 'establishment'.

The trump cult isn't even entirely wrong. trump IS a 'wild card', just not in the good way they think, and their hatred of the 'corrupt establishment' is largely correct - though they can't tell the difference between the actual monsters like the Koch brothers and the phony ones like everyone who has investigated trump's crimes, who he attacks.

The problem with what you posted is reality - Trump's successes.

Being unemployed and broke is a terribly desperate place to be, especially with a family. Unemployment is very low. I agree with President Trump on tariffs. I agree we should pursue detente' with Russia. I agree China is an extremely unfair competitor refusing to comply with trademark and copyright laws and treating their employees horrifically while costing American jobs and business. I agree with Trump on illegal immigration - even wishing much stronger measures than he is employing - knowing a Democratic President would do nothing. I agree with Trump on most, not all, of what he does and pursues.

Whether he is a good person or bad person? I'm not a priest. I don't know what's in his soul or if he has one. If he is a criminal, he's a money criminal. I think nearly member of Congress, both parties, are money criminals. That's how they become multi-millionaires on Congressional salary. On the federal level, officeholder = money criminal.

 

[Luckyone]

In my opinion, other than the economy in general, immigration is President Trump's strongest issue. But should he play the issue in the strongest ways, in the view that the ends justify the means in the long run? If he loses, Democrats will open the Southern border flood gate.

Maybe, tacitly, Trump should do so himself about 3 months before the election. Covertly open gaps allow mobs of tens of thousands of illegal migrants to flood into San Diego, El Paso and Brownsville, while blocking all federal aid to those immigrants. Almost immediately those cities would be turned into chaotic crime centers, with this spreading across the nation. This would entirely land on the Democratic Party for refusing to pass the needed legislation to secure our borders and stop the waves of mobs of immigrants being escorted to our Southern border.

Would that be ethical? For the President to show Americans EXACTLY what the Democratic Party will do with a relative small scale demonstration of what the millions more uneducated and impoverished migrants would cause, knowing the harms that would come with that real-life practical demonstration of the effects of unrestricted mass immigration across our Southern border?

When do the ends justify the means in politics?

It never ceases to amaze me how people can say anything they want without being accountable for what they say. Freedom of speech? Yes! Freedom from truth? Yes, as well!

You state that the Democrats are for open borders and yet I have not been able to find one single article that mentions any Democrat stating they are "for open borders".

As such, anyone like you saying something so outlandish as you have said cannot be believed because you have shown no proof of your statement.

I could easily state that you are a racist toward Mexicans and/or strongly biased toward Democrats because of your statements, I could easily say you are blind to truth, and I could easily say that you are a dupe that believes anything you are told because your statements suggest you are all of the above and I would be more right in saying that simply because I have read what YOU PERSONALLY have said. You on the other hand have not yet shown proof that any democrat has said "I am for open borders".

As such, I will say that you are not believable and that you are a provocateur trying to instill hate against your own fellow Americans simply because they are of a different party.

It is pure garbage what you state and unless you can prove your statement by showing a Democrat saying they are for open borders, it will be classified officially as garbage. It is all your own assumptions based on your biased mind.

Like all Trump supporters say when Trump is accused of being a Russian Puppet. PROVE IT!

 

[Luckyone]

The problem with what you posted is reality - Trump's successes.

Being unemployed and broke is a terribly desperate place to be, especially with a family. Unemployment is very low. I agree with President Trump on tariffs. I agree we should pursue detente' with Russia. I agree China is an extremely unfair competitor refusing to comply with trademark and copyright laws and treating their employees horrifically while costing American jobs and business. I agree with Trump on illegal immigration - even wishing much stronger measures than he is employing - knowing a Democratic President would do nothing. I agree with Trump on most, not all, of what he does and pursues.

Whether he is a good person or bad person? I'm not a priest. I don't know what's in his soul or if he has one. If he is a criminal, he's a money criminal. I think nearly member of Congress, both parties, are money criminals. That's how they become multi-millionaires on Congressional salary. On the federal level, officeholder = money criminal.

Nonetheless, Trump has proven he is incompetent and that he is now a billionaire only because of the help he received from the Russians. This has been proven! So my question to you is simple. Do you support an incompetent person that needed the help from our enemies to survive economically?

 

[Luckyone]

Even if Trump is a criminal:

1. He's not a violent criminal in terms of the ordinary meaning of violent. Possibly abusive on occasion.

2. If he is a criminal, he is a money criminal.

Today at a C-store I stop at almost every day for a donut, a new cashier was working out of an open cash register drawer. For one he used a calculator. The other 2 before me he just knew the price. So there is another money criminal. Probably a few million different kinds of theft in the USA every day. The child stealing some coins. Shoplifters.

I'm not a thief, but if I had to pick being stealing out of a cash register or tricking banks and investors into giving me tens of millions of dollars in loans because I want to be in the jet set and buy an airline - fast talking past former business failures - I'd pick the latter. Which one would you pick?

Even if ultimately he were sent to prison for the rest of his life, at his age it still be correct to note the extraordinary success of his crime spree and note how much he personally enjoyed using his loot. This would also assure people will know the name of Trump as having been president for being imprisoned for however many centuries the county continues to exist, taught in schools. Just like people will remember Nixon longer than Carter. I think Trump would like that long of fame, even if infamy.

I've stated often Trump is the world's greatest and most successful attention whore. It's called promotion, that's what advertising is. He advertises himself. Do you agree with that?

(However, I don't believe Trump is a criminal, he's a businessman. All great businessmen took huge gambles with other people's money - and it not rare their history of both great successes and great failures. Some would tell of failures is inherently necessary for having great successes. Business, after all, is a crap shoot. Yeah, you think it's a good business idea. Only one way to find out. I truly admire Trump for that perspective. That's what builds things.)

I totally agree with you on the bolded part. Nonetheless, I have a question for you. Attention whores normally do it because they have big egos and want to be the center of attention, meaning that they have a high degree of necessity to be loved, respected, seen, appreciated, etc. Such a person is more likely to make a decision based on that need rather than based on what is right or wrong. Simply stated, his decision making process is based on being liked by the people that support him rather than whether it is the right decision or not.

That means he does not have a game plan, does not have principles, does not have ethics, does not have morals and does not have humanity given that being loved is the single most important thing to him. Can you trust such a person to make the right decision for the country or just make the decision that is most favorable to his ego?

 

[Casper]

I didn't say anything about closing legitimate entry points, simply the border where there are no law enforcement checks.

But much more to the point, we need to begin aggressively enforcing our immigration laws.

That is why E-VERIFY needs to be the law if the land and business owners held liable monetarily and criminally, and all social services other than emergency care cut off. Most would self deport and those entering would slow to a trickle. All done without spending Billions and Billions.
The only thing I would add is a Vetting system where Green Card speakers can be Vetted which is good for 5 years and if no crimes are committed the renewal is quick, which addresses legitimate needs for labor.
This is not really a novel idea and would work, so why is it, if I and others can figure this out, that no politicians Dem or Repub pushing for this solution? One has to ask if either side really wants to resolve this issue, or is it a good political tool used by each?

 

[Luckyone]

I've stated before, love or hate Donald Trump, but he is a brilliant strategist. Not just in politics too, but in life. Everything he did. Most impressive personal history I've ever read of in modern times across his entire life.

Wow, you really are brainwashed.

Trump started with $414 million that was given to him by his daddy and turned that into a $1.17 loss and in the process bankrupted 6 companies and failed on 7 more and in all different types of industries. His brilliant mind even had him fail at 3 casinos which are almost foolproof non-failure businesses. It was not until 2001 when he associated himself with the Bayrock Group (Russian backed) and in that group was Felix Sater (a billionaire that was confirmed part of the Russian mafia) that Trump started to have success.

Or as another Trump biographer, Gwenda Blair, put it: “Trump was on the Titanic heading down. Everyone’s drowning around him. … Suddenly he gets saved. It’s almost like a spaceship landed right next to where he was in the water.”

All this history helps put into context some recent developments in the investigations by Mueller and the Southern District of New York, which have focused on supposed Trump collusion or conspiracy with the Russians. It may have seemed odd at first that during the presidential campaign the people in Trump’s orbit—including Trump’s son, daughter, and son-in-law—were contacted by at least 14 Russians, according to information emerging from the federal investigations. Or that in November 2015, according to a sentencing memo published recently, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen was approached by a Russian who offered “political synergy” between the Trump campaign and Russia (adding that a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin would have “phenomenal” impact “not only in political but in a business dimension as well”).

But in fact at least some of these encounters appear to have sprung from business contacts Trump had developed over nearly two decades.

According to Trump’s former real-estate partner and other sources who are familiar with the internal workings of the Trump Organization, his post-’90s revival may have really begun in the early 2000s with the Bayrock Group, which rented offices two floors down from Trump’s in Trump Tower. Bayrock was run by two investors who would help to change Trump’s trajectory: Tevfik Arif, a Kazakhstan-born former Soviet official who drew on seemingly bottomless sources of money from the former Soviet republic; and Felix Sater, a Russian-born businessman who had pleaded guilty in the 1990s to a huge stock-fraud scheme involving the Russian mafia.

With Bayrock’s help, Trump began his broad transformation from a builder to a brander. He reinvented himself and his business model—going from being a force in real estate to a nearly bankrupt but brazen self-promoter who had mainly his name to sell. In lieu of the big banks, Bayrock helped to bring Trump back into real estate by supplying him with the equity stake he needed to entice new lenders for big projects, according to a former Bayrock official. The biggest of those projects was the Trump SoHo, the troubled 46-story condominium and hotel that has been a target of lawsuits since it opened in 2010 and is reportedly being investigated by Mueller over whether it was financed partly by Russian money. That deal gave Trump 18 percent of the equity just for licensing his name. (In addition to Bayrock, the other partner was the Sapir family from the former Soviet republic of Georgia.)

The Brilliant mind became brilliant overnight but with the help of the Bayrock Group. Without the Bayrock Group, the brilliant mind would never have appeared, suggesting that the brilliant minds were the people in the Bayrock Group and not Trump.

Yoko, you truly need to seek the truth about things or you will forever be a dupe of anyone that is better than you and given that the person that is better than you (and that you agree with your statement is better than you) is a person that he himself could not get himself out of a paper bag even with starting with $414 million that his daddy gave him.

It does not speak well of your ability to think and reason that a failed con man has conned you.

 

[marke]

In my opinion, other than the economy in general, immigration is President Trump's strongest issue. But should he play the issue in the strongest ways, in the view that the ends justify the means in the long run? If he loses, Democrats will open the Southern border flood gate.

Maybe, tacitly, Trump should do so himself about 3 months before the election. Covertly open gaps allow mobs of tens of thousands of illegal migrants to flood into San Diego, El Paso and Brownsville, while blocking all federal aid to those immigrants. Almost immediately those cities would be turned into chaotic crime centers, with this spreading across the nation. This would entirely land on the Democratic Party for refusing to pass the needed legislation to secure our borders and stop the waves of mobs of immigrants being escorted to our Southern border.

Would that be ethical? For the President to show Americans EXACTLY what the Democratic Party will do with a relative small scale demonstration of what the millions more uneducated and impoverished migrants would cause, knowing the harms that would come with that real-life practical demonstration of the effects of unrestricted mass immigration across our Southern border?

When do the ends justify the means in politics?

Democrats and foolish judges have fought Trump to keep the floodgate of illegal immigration open. Trump is wise to send those immigrants to cities which have been the most vocal in fighting against border security. And because Congress opposes spending money on the illegal immigrant crisis Trump is wise to let those stubborn states pay for the upkeep of those immigrants without additional federal money.