In Trump We Trust

2/13/2017 10:06:04 PM

MAGA

2/13/2017 11:18:51 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-flynn-idUSKBN15S0BR

Timeline is great. Sally Yates (now fired, former Attorney General) warns Trump that Michael Flynn may be vulnerable to blackmail due to Russian ties.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/politics/michael-flynn-justice-department-warning/

Trump nominates him anyway.

Literally through today, continues to reiterate support for Flynn.

Washington Post article is posted - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/michael-flynn-resigns-as-national-security-adviser/2017/02/13/0007c0a8-f26e-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html?utm_term=.0efe9585909c

Flynn resigns (or is asked to resign) immediately after.

Let's see if Trump will now explain why he nominated Flynn after knowing about the Russian ties. And why his close advisers keep having to resign when said Russian ties are revealed. First his campaign adviser, now his national security adviser.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-trump-aide-paul-manafort-scrutinized-russian-business-ties-n631241
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-making-inquiry-ex-trump-campaign-manager-s-foreign-ties-n675881

Quote :

"NBC News reported in August that Manafort was a key player in multi-million-dollar business propositions with Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs — one of them a close Putin ally with alleged ties to organized crime — which foreign policy experts said raised questions about the pro-Russian bent of the Trump candidacy. A few days later, amid other reporting on Manafort's Ukraine ties, Manafort was ousted from the campaign."

[Edited on February 14, 2017 at 12:30 AM. Reason : a]

2/14/2017 12:29:53 AM

2/14/2017 9:19:32 PM

When will it be okay to publicly call people who voted for trump idiots?

2/14/2017 9:54:00 PM

uhh, any time since 8 Nov 2016, or their primary, if applicable?

2/14/2017 10:04:11 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html

2/14/2017 10:47:32 PM

So many haters here who do not want to MAGA, well, except for the first two on this page.

2/15/2017 12:36:22 AM

Quote :

"But the intercepts alarmed American intelligence and law enforcement agencies"

the deep state is going to chew up and spit trump out

[Edited on February 15, 2017 at 6:44 AM. Reason : s]

2/15/2017 6:39:53 AM

Who is, or is considering voting for Trump in 2020? If so, go to his first reelection rally!!!

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/831974600934318151

2/15/2017 9:19:57 PM

so this next 4 years is just going to kinda be a reality TV show I guess

2/16/2017 2:56:19 AM

^always have been but we got a new executive producer this year

2/16/2017 6:04:38 AM

The show is "going in another direction"

2/16/2017 7:08:44 AM

I'd happily vote for the Orange man 2020 based on his current results.

Especially if the leftists double down on identity politics/victimhood to further their socialism.

2/16/2017 11:19:28 AM

JCE2011 was removed from the voter roll because of inactivity, dude has never voted

2/16/2017 11:22:02 AM

Quote :

"so this next 4 years is just going to kinda be a reality TV show I guess"

The next 4 years is basically his election campaign.

**********************************************************
Reporter: What are you going to do the next 4 years?

Trump: Campaign for reelection to #MAGAandA.

Reporter: But how will you MAGA these 4 years?

Trump: It is already GA because I won... can't you see, everybody is so happy and the country is doing so well???

Reporter: But if you are not going to do anything next 4 years, why did you run?

Trump: To win so I can campaign to win again.

Reporter: But Mr. President that...

Trump: You will see on Feb. 16, 2021... it will be so great, people will be literally begging us to stop... there is going to be so much love, so much love...

Reporter:

2/16/2017 11:41:38 AM

Quote :

"based on his current results. "

?

2/16/2017 1:48:06 PM

^ Notification I got on my phone just now from Google News and Weather:

Quote :

"The Latest: Trump says administration 'a fine-tuned machine' Washington Post"

2/16/2017 1:52:31 PM

At this point, no one really has any reason to believe a single word that comes out of Trump's mouth. Seriously, are their press releases anything more than propoganda at this point?

2/16/2017 1:59:33 PM

Yet there are vast swaths of the population that do believe every word he says. And another larger part that don't care what he says as long as he still has that (R) behind his name.

2/16/2017 2:33:04 PM

Quote :

"?"

-Appointing a textualist judge that respects the constitution, and will delay the leftist in their attempt to transform us into a socialist hell hole (IN PROGRESS)

-Building a wall, taking a stand on immigration no other big donor-backed candidate could take (IN PROGRESS)

-Calling out the leftist media bias (IN PROGRESS)

-Making SJWs cry (IN PROGRESS)

2/16/2017 2:54:46 PM

-Doesn't know the definition of socialist

-Wasting money on walls that won't stop illegal immigration; there is no evidence that any border security measure to date has reduced illegal immigration significantly; in fact, rates continued to rise as border security increased.

-Whine like a child

-If it doesn't affect me, then it's not a problem

2/16/2017 3:06:33 PM

-failed travel ban
-repealing dodd-frank
-not draining the swamp
-worst cabinet, ever.
etc.

but at least he's being a big meanie to all the leftist hacks I suppose...

2/16/2017 4:20:01 PM

- thinks all black people know each other
- can't hear a question about anti-semitism without assuming he's being called an anti-semite
- probably committed treason

2/16/2017 4:21:27 PM

Quote :

"Wasting money on walls that won't stop illegal immigration; there is no evidence that any border security measure to date has reduced illegal immigration significantly; in fact, rates continued to rise as border security increased."

Yep - another misdirected action which really is just to play to emotions (in this case, fear and racism). Trying to find the numbers, but there's good reason to believe the majority of new illegal immigrants (that is, unauthorized people residing in the US) each year came here on a valid visa. I wonder how the wall will stop that one.

2/16/2017 4:54:15 PM

^ if the wall is tall enough, it can stop the planes full of future-illegal-immigrants!!!

2/16/2017 4:56:18 PM

Quote :

"-If it doesn't affect me, then it's not a problem"

That is the beauty of false narratives of oppression. Technically, they don't actually affect anyone.

2/16/2017 5:04:48 PM

much like the liberal media is oppressing you, right?

[Edited on February 16, 2017 at 5:11 PM. Reason : oh, and George Soros.]

2/16/2017 5:11:06 PM

Yea everyone else is wrong. Donnie is the only person that can fix Americas ailments. Who the fuck can actually believe that?

2/16/2017 6:49:35 PM

Quote :

"much like the liberal media is oppressing you, right? "

The liberal media can't oppress me, they are too busy getting fucked by the Orange man.

2/16/2017 7:38:10 PM

Sure.... I'll wait for your next inevitable scathing complaint about the liberal media oppressing you.

[Edited on February 16, 2017 at 10:59 PM. Reason : ]

2/16/2017 10:58:24 PM

This is surreal

He is already tattered at the edges and falling apart... no way he will last a whole year, let alone 4 years

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-02-16/candidate-trump-tries-to-salvage-an-embattled-president-trump

2/17/2017 12:35:47 AM

It's on!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-behaviour-impeachment-us-politicians-remove-us-president-review-removal-procedures-25-a7583081.html

Perfect follow-up to ^

2/17/2017 1:44:03 AM

An opinion piece from a leftist hack? That will surely stop trump

2/17/2017 9:10:04 AM

Building the wall (and other similar border security measures) is very similar to the war on drugs. The focus is on the supply side and is pretty much completely ineffective. Those in power must know this. They aren't stupid people, generally. Which makes me believe the wall, the war on drugs, etc. aren't about solving the issues they are touted to solve.

You can burn a Columbia farmer's illicit crops and he'll go hungry. His costs increase. The drug cartels? They are essentially the Wal-Mart in the drug industry. They set the prices, so they'll still pay the same, or nearly the same, for the crop. The farmer is left with higher costs but the same or similar selling price. The street price of the drug, if the increase in cost actually gets passed along the chain, is pennies. You can double the price of the crop production and the street cost is increased by tenths of a percent, maybe a few percent at most. The money and violence spent on fighting the supply is ineffective. Yet we keep doing it knowing it will not help. There are other motives.

Likewise, building walls, etc. has a similar effect. I'm not against border security and hard structures. But there is a limit to what is needed and what we should pay. The issue is that our government, and especially Republicans, refuse to address the demand. For illegal immigration, that means going after businesses that hire illegals. Mainly farming and construction. But we all know how much sway these two groups have with elected officials. No one wants to blame the poor family farmer, I mean, he's just a good ol' boy putting food on our tables. But he is also the one creating a huge demand for labor. He's the one wanting cheaper and cheaper labor without taxes, benefits, etc. getting in the way. Same for the construction industry. Illegal immigrants aren't stealing jobs. Employers are just going with the lowest bidder. And the wall doesn't even address or prevent what may be the primary means of entering the country illegally. There are other motives.

[Edited on February 17, 2017 at 10:17 AM. Reason : .]

2/17/2017 10:15:31 AM

His family history is damn fucking scary. The oldest boy among his siblings, his brother, was pushed by his parents to death.

[Edited on February 17, 2017 at 10:50 AM. Reason : The immigrant family]

2/17/2017 10:29:10 AM

You know, another important thing to note about the "anchor baby" thing skewing votes is that you have to be 18 to vote. So, you would have had to be born in 1998 or earlier to vote in the 2016 election. And immigration numbers started leveling off years ago. I'm wondering how that affects things.

But again (looking at you JCE), child births to illegal immigrants represent a very very small portion of overall births. They aren't skewing anything.

US Births 2013 - 3.93 million
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db175.htm

US Births to immigrant parents - 295,000
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/09/11/number-of-babies-born-in-u-s-to-unauthorized-immigrants-declines/

The first graph on this link shows hispanic births lower than all others (that is, non hispanic white and non hispanic black).

So, 7.5 % of all births in 2013 were "anchor babies." The smallest racial portion of that were hispanic.

Now, I don't have data on this but to begin with you have to subtract all the births to parents legally here on visa, green cards, naturalization, etc. to get to your "illegal immigrant" argument.

So your % drops even lower. It's a non issue when it comes to voting. May change in the future but for now, numbers don't back up the skewing argument.

[Edited on February 17, 2017 at 10:39 AM. Reason : a]

2/17/2017 10:39:06 AM

Quote :

"Building the wall (and other similar border security measures) is very similar to the war on drugs. The focus is on the supply side and is pretty much completely ineffective. Those in power must know this. They aren't stupid people, generally. Which makes me believe the wall, the war on drugs, etc. aren't about solving the issues they are touted to solve."

To me, building the wall is a giveaway to the people that have been screaming about immigration. Previously that segment of the population would get an eye roll from the left and right. Trump is the first one to offer anything to appease them. It doesn't have to be a good idea or feasible, he's getting credit for listening to them.

As most people with some business experience know, it's sometimes the people who follow through on bad ideas that move up the chain. A bad idea with action is more effective than a good idea with no action.

2/17/2017 10:39:48 AM

^^ the narrative isnt nearly as great when you actually think about it.

Also 57% of the population voted in 2016 so that cuts whatever number you get to in half. AND assumes they voted democrat.

2/17/2017 11:15:02 AM

LOL, one of my redneck (unemployed) "relatives" (ex-marriage, let's call her Crystal) complained on Facebook that "Trump needs to take his self somewhere!!!". When her sister (let's call her Angie) said he's so much better than that "Obama-thing", and that wall "will look real nice", Crystal agreed that he's better than Obama, but he "Lies, Lies, Lies!".... but Crystal's biggest complaint was that he keeps interrupting her programs, yesterday he interrupted the Young and the Restless, and she was pissed!

(and she's far, far from being a "liberal". i'm actually really surprised she doesn't like trump, although it makes sense that her biggest complaint is he interrupts her stories. she also complained about obama and socialism, but her family and children get all kinds of hand-outs, and she's never had a job
)

[Edited on February 17, 2017 at 12:16 PM. Reason : ]

2/17/2017 12:05:47 PM

Quote :

"But again (looking at you JCE), child births to illegal immigrants represent a very very small portion of overall births. They aren't skewing anything."

Not sure how this came up in this thread.

You're arguing that they are a small portion... that doesn't mean anchor baby births aren't skewing demographics.

Refer to the chart you posted, to be old enough to vote in this election, you would have to be born on or before 1998. So, assuming the numbers are accurate, that is still almost 2 million anchor babies that are able to vote in the election. That skews the demographics. That skew originates from states like California not enforcing the law.

As your source also proves, Hispanics have higher birthrates. We have just been counting anchor babies born in the past 20 years or so, and that is still 2 million able to vote. What about the older illegal immigrants from the past 50 years? What about their anchor babies, and what about the anchor baby children? With a higher birthrate especially, illegal immigration has largely skewed the demographics (just look at California, aka North Mexico).
California is the reason Trump lost the popular vote, and if you want to look at the population that can trace its route back to illegal immigration, it is easily much larger than 3 million.

So yes, illegal immigration and the anchor babies that result have a huge skew on demographics that benefit democrats. All I can say is thank god for the electoral college.

[Edited on February 17, 2017 at 12:07 PM. Reason : .]

2/17/2017 12:05:59 PM

^ lgic

2/17/2017 12:39:34 PM

Quote :

"So, 7.5 % of all births in 2013 were "anchor babies." The smallest racial portion of that were hispanic."

1.6% of the population is gay. Are you saying that politicians should stop pandering to the gay community?

2/17/2017 1:00:56 PM

Actually I still can't believe he's the new president already. OMG.

2/17/2017 1:03:32 PM

^^ are you under the impression that only gay people support and lobby for equal rights?

2/17/2017 2:04:04 PM

^^^if 1.6% of the population is being prejudiced against, their should be changes. Not sure what you mean by "pandering." Do you mean treating fairly and equally?

You can't use that number in this context. The 1.6% represents what the true impact is of immigrant-born children to our overall population. Furthermore, the majority of children born are born to white people.

So how exactly are the children of illegal immigrants from Mexico suddenly skewing our voting 18 years later? The fact that white children are being born at a higher rate actually means THEY are having a larger impact than the children of illegal immigrants.

[Edited on February 17, 2017 at 2:05 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on February 17, 2017 at 2:05 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on February 17, 2017 at 2:07 PM. Reason : a]

2/17/2017 2:05:20 PM

It isn't sudden. It has been a long ongoing process as our politicians have failed to enforce immigration laws.

Hispanics have higher birthrates than whites, you are being deliberately ignorant/deceptive if you aren't adjusting for population. Per person Hispanics have a higher birthrate, so the ramifications of illegal immigration result in generations of democrat votes, beyond the initial anchor babies.

It is a skew in the demographics, that isn't debatable. You can argue on the scale of the skew, but I'm saying in totality the results of illegal immigration more than account for the popular vote win Clinton had, meaning it is a meaningless thing to discuss.

If your mother snuck into the country illegally, chances are you are very poor, chances are, even with the taxpayers paying ~$120k for your K-12 education (probably with ESL too) you probably are going to vote for the party claiming you are a victim and offering handouts. And, like most poor people, you will probably have way more kids than you can afford, and the cycle of poverty and democrat votes will continue.

Like I said though, thank god for the electoral college.

2/17/2017 3:52:10 PM

lol, its cute that you guys engage this dude, but haven't you figured out that even when you demonstrate that he is factually wrong he is just going to pivot and troll you in another way?

stop trying, you guys are fucking morons

2/17/2017 4:07:14 PM

^hes trolling the shit out of you dude

2/17/2017 6:18:12 PM

it started with the Irish.....

2/17/2017 10:56:55 PM