Up Like Trump

[RoomBot]

[1714652929]

1714652929

[1714652929]

1714652929

[1714652929]

1714652929

[1714652929]

1714652929

[1714652929]

1714652929

[1714652929]

1714652929

[Nxtblg]

Donald Trump's Huge Campaign Announcement

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO-1ePYypdU

Trouble is, it becomes pretty clear half 'way through the clip that the voice is Jimmy Kimmel's.

You're dumb, that's definitely not Jimmy Kimmel's voice... is that Jimmy Kimmel's face doing the speaking as well?

It's clearly an impersonator, and it's certainly not Jimmy... wow... April Fool's

Yes, it is Jimmy doing the impersonation. Try listening more carefully.

[Wilikon]

Donald Trump's Huge Campaign Announcement

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO-1ePYypdU

Trouble is, it becomes pretty clear half 'way through the clip that the voice is Jimmy Kimmel's.

You're dumb, that's definitely not Jimmy Kimmel's voice... is that Jimmy Kimmel's face doing the speaking as well?

It's clearly an impersonator, and it's certainly not Jimmy... wow... April Fool's

Yes, it is Jimmy doing the impersonation. Try listening more carefully.

He is a berniebot. What you are asking of him is beyond the 0.7Kb of codes of his throwaway purpose...

 

[PakistanHockeyfan]

Just wondering, is anyone here openly supporting Trump's decision to deport Mexicans? If so, why? I am not trying to judge the views or demands. I would just like to understand them. Not fight them, just understand them. Please quote and respond to me with your views if you are indeed a Trump supporter.

[tvbcof]

Just wondering, is anyone here openly supporting Trump's decision to deport Mexicans? If so, why? I am not trying to judge the views or demands. I would just like to understand them. Not fight them, just understand them. Please quote and respond to me with your views if you are indeed a Trump supporter.

I am (and I am a Trump supporter.)  Even back when I was much more of a 'progressive', which was not that long ago, I was always uncomfortable with ILLEGAL immigration.  It was fairly obvious that at some point the chickens would come home to roost.  It was also obvious that one of the goals was to drive down labor costs and thus standards of living for citizens.

At the present time, I would favor inviting a fair number of ILLEGALS to stick around under the following conditions:

 - They queued up first in line (by being the first to 'turn themselves in' or enter through the metaphorical 'big beautiful gate' that Trump speaks of.)

 - They can satisfactorily document their history in their native country and it was benign.

 - Their stay in our country was at least neutral.  That is, they did not engage in significant criminal activity here or accept social services.

 - They could document their income earned while in the U.S. and agreed to pay any taxes owed on it over the course of the rest of their stay (which, I would hope, would include a process of naturalization in a lot of cases.)

  - If someone managed to pull off an anchor-baby, they get to stay.  As far as I'm concerned that would normally have taken some gumption which is correlated with being the type of people we need here.  And, of course, the kids are as American as I am.

I would also factor in whether they have special skills which would benefit the country.  The only thing which makes me uncomfortable about this is that it royally screws the parent country to suck out those who have skills or talent.

I broadened my thoughts to be beyond Mexico since I see no reason to limit it.  As for Mexico, they have one of the highest GINI coefficients on the planet.  I see no reason to help them control their own significant social and political problems by absorbing their unwanted.  In fact, I'd be amused to see those who were booted out of the country without an invite to return be given the tools to topple their own rotten government and try to re-build something they don't feel like running away from.

[Moloch]

Just wondering, is anyone here openly supporting Trump's decision to deport Mexicans? If so, why? I am not trying to judge the views or demands. I would just like to understand them. Not fight them, just understand them. Please quote and respond to me with your views if you are indeed a Trump supporter.

I am (and I am a Trump supporter.)

Reading your post... it sounds more like you do not support deporting illegals at all... only in the case of them being criminals, which everyone can agree upon... nobody is arguing for illegals who are also criminals to stay here... those always get deported/extradited

If you support letting them stay when they have an anchor baby, or if they are benign, or if they have useful talents/skills... then you support letting them stay, not deporting them... hate to break it to ya

[galdur]

CNBC's Steve Liesman Makes A "Discovery": Americans Are Increasingly Angry And They Want Trump

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/04/2016 22:32 -0400

Earlier today, CNBC's Steve Liesman made two very important, in fact "critical", if about one year overdue, discoveries.

The first one was that Americans are angry.

According to the CNBC All-America Survey, a majority of Americans are angry about both the political and the economic system.

Perhaps if CNBC had discovered this sooner, it would have figured out that the reason it no longer reports its ratings to Nielsen has something to do with its underlying "rosy" slant on things, one which perhaps brings out people's, well, anger. That and the occasional informercial for Ferrari and million dollar homes.

The second discovery is that angry Americans largely support Trump over Hillary, something we have discussed since last summer.

As Liesman puts it, nearly three-fourths of the public is angry or dissatisfied with the political system in Washington, compared with 56 percent who are angry or dissatisfied about the economy. This group favors Trump on the economy over Clinton 28 percent to 21 percent.

.....more

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-04/cnbcs-steve-liesman-makes-discovery-americans-are-increasingly-angry-and-they-want-t

[Wilikon]

CNBC's Steve Liesman Makes A "Discovery": Americans Are Increasingly Angry And They Want Trump

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/04/2016 22:32 -0400

Earlier today, CNBC's Steve Liesman made two very important, in fact "critical", if about one year overdue, discoveries.

The first one was that Americans are angry.

According to the CNBC All-America Survey, a majority of Americans are angry about both the political and the economic system.

Perhaps if CNBC had discovered this sooner, it would have figured out that the reason it no longer reports its ratings to Nielsen has something to do with its underlying "rosy" slant on things, one which perhaps brings out people's, well, anger. That and the occasional informercial for Ferrari and million dollar homes.

The second discovery is that angry Americans largely support Trump over Hillary, something we have discussed since last summer.

As Liesman puts it, nearly three-fourths of the public is angry or dissatisfied with the political system in Washington, compared with 56 percent who are angry or dissatisfied about the economy. This group favors Trump on the economy over Clinton 28 percent to 21 percent.

.....more

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-04/cnbcs-steve-liesman-makes-discovery-americans-are-increasingly-angry-and-they-want-t

CNBC's Steve Liesman Makes A "Discovery": Americans Are Increasingly ♥♥Enlighten ♥♥ And They Want Trump

[tvbcof]

Just wondering, is anyone here openly supporting Trump's decision to deport Mexicans? If so, why? I am not trying to judge the views or demands. I would just like to understand them. Not fight them, just understand them. Please quote and respond to me with your views if you are indeed a Trump supporter.

I am (and I am a Trump supporter.)

Reading your post... it sounds more like you do not support deporting illegals at all... only in the case of them being criminals, which everyone can agree upon... nobody is arguing for illegals who are also criminals to stay here... those always get deported/extradited

If you support letting them stay when they have an anchor baby, or if they are benign, or if they have useful talents/skills... then you support letting them stay, not deporting them... hate to break it to ya

I've said before that I would prefer, as fellow countrymen, many of the Mexican family people I know to many of the mentally and physically damaged, spoiled, lazy, indoctrinated, low-info losers who are native born.  As an example, note that Sanders acts like a magnet for such people.

Don't forget that people who accepted welfare of various types would probably not be allowed back in, or if they are, it would be at a lower priority.  I had thought that it was loony right-wing hyperbole that the Left was deliberately importing people who were prone to and encouraged to be dependent on the state in order to swell the ranks of Democrat voters and achieve other objectives (esp, Cloward and Piven.)  I now believe that that might be exactly what has been going on over the last 7 years.  My policy would be to reverse that.

I would feel somewhat sorry for the people who are used as pawns in the game and migrated back and forth, but they got some benefit for a while complements of my tax dollars already, and Mexico is not Hell.  If it is, they should go back and help make it better.

Edit: added link  Note: For a period of time I disregard Cloward & Piven for the sole reason that I first heard of it from the pie-hole of Glen Beck who I did and do detest.  'Agenda 21' similar.  Note to fellow 'reformed progressives' or those in the process:  A powerful strategy is to encourage or demand that people intellectually box themselves in and not explore ideas presented by those outside of a defined 'safe zone.'  Recognize and reject this for your own good and the good of society.  I think this is also the reason behind the increasingly powerful taboo against 'talking politics.'

[tvbcof]

Back to Bitcoin, and some legitimate concerns about Trump from a 'supporter':

I've always said that Bitcoin would explode only under pressure, and I underestimated the stratigic capabilities of our adversaries when they, for all intents and purposes, 'accepted' Bitcoin so far.

Trump could be dynamite for Bitcoin just on his own 'natural' instincts (and others which are beyond the scope of this post):

  http://abcnews.go.com/Business/economic-ramifications-trumps-border-wall-proposal/story?id=38161205

The trouble is that it doesn't take a genius to see that Bitcoin (or distributed crypto-currencies generally) threaten a broad range of punitive actions requiring control of money flows.  My chief concern about Trump is that he actually does seem to be quite authoritarian, and he has not seen fit to even pay lip service to the concepts of 'freedom' or 'individual liberties.'

My support of Trump is predicated on two beliefs:

  1) The realistic alternatives to Trump are at least as bad in terms of 'individual liberties' as he is, and

  2) We are in so much trouble that there is no alternative to 'authoritarianism' just to keep people alive, and the troubles will probably come to a head in my lifetime (perhaps tomorrow.)  My hope is that it (e.g., martial law) would be limited duration and possible to escape from once the immediate need is gone, and that the vision for society that Trump has would set the stage for a re-emergence aligning in principle with the concepts outlines in our founding documents.  Again, more-so than the alternatives to Trump.

[Nxtblg]

Back to Bitcoin, and some legitimate concerns about Trump from a 'supporter':

I've always said that Bitcoin would explode only under pressure, and I underestimated the stratigic capabilities of our adversaries when they, for all intents and purposes, 'accepted' Bitcoin so far.

Trump could be dynamite for Bitcoin just on his own 'natural' instincts (and others which are beyond the scope of this post):

(snip)

I've been thinking along the same lines, although Bitcoin's open-ledger nature would complicate things a bit. 

[zenitzz]

Trump reveals plan to finance Mexico border wall with threat to cut off funds


Billionaire Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has finally revealed how he plans to force Mexico to pay for his multibillion-dollar wall along the US southern border, a linchpin of his presidential campaign that has never been fully detailed before.

The key to the wall’s financing, Trump wrote in a two-page memo to the Washington Post, is threatening to halt money transfers from Mexican immigrants in the US to family back home. These remittances amount to nearly $25bn each year, roughly 2% of the Mexican gross domestic product, according to the World Bank. Cutting off these money transfers could doom the Mexican economy to recession and severely damage diplomatic relations.

“It’s an easy decision for Mexico,” Trump wrote in the memo, written on campaign stationary emblazoned with his “Make America Great Again!” motto. “Make a one-time payment of $5-$10bn to ensure that $24bn continues to flow into their country year after year.”

Trump has previously estimated the cost of building the wall at $8bn.

In the memo, entitled Compelling Mexico to Pay for the Wall, Trump said that on the first day of his presidency he would warn the Mexican government of a new regulation that would allow for the government’s seizure of financial assets by immigrants unless they provide documentation establishing “lawful presence in the United States”. According to Trump, “the majority” of the amount sent as remittances comes from undocumented migrants.

The feasibility and legality of such a maneuver is unclear. “Trump is giving an extremely broad definition of this section of the Patriot Act and what it allows, and it’d surely be litigated,” Stuart Anderson, executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy, told the Washington Post. “It would be a large expansion beyond what the text reads.”

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/05/donald-trump-mexico-border-wall-plan-remittances

[Spendulus]

Trump reveals plan to finance Mexico border wall with threat to cut off funds


Billionaire Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has finally revealed how he plans to force Mexico to pay for his multibillion-dollar wall along the US southern border, a linchpin of his presidential campaign that has never been fully detailed before.

The key to the wall’s financing, Trump wrote in a two-page memo to the Washington Post, is threatening to halt money transfers from Mexican immigrants in the US to family back home. These remittances amount to nearly $25bn each year, roughly 2% of the Mexican gross domestic product, according to the World Bank. Cutting off these money transfers could doom the Mexican economy to recession and severely damage diplomatic relations.

“It’s an easy decision for Mexico,” Trump wrote in the memo, written on campaign stationary emblazoned with his “Make America Great Again!” motto. “Make a one-time payment of $5-$10bn to ensure that $24bn continues to flow into their country year after year.”

Trump has previously estimated the cost of building the wall at $8bn.

In the memo, entitled Compelling Mexico to Pay for the Wall, Trump said that on the first day of his presidency he would warn the Mexican government of a new regulation that would allow for the government’s seizure of financial assets by immigrants unless they provide documentation establishing “lawful presence in the United States”. According to Trump, “the majority” of the amount sent as remittances comes from undocumented migrants.

The feasibility and legality of such a maneuver is unclear. “Trump is giving an extremely broad definition of this section of the Patriot Act and what it allows, and it’d surely be litigated,” Stuart Anderson, executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy, told the Washington Post. “It would be a large expansion beyond what the text reads.”

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/05/donald-trump-mexico-border-wall-plan-remittances

Bah.  Mexicans are moving large amounts of money without any documentation. 

American citizens cannot do this, they have to report the reason for each transfer over $5000.

[PakistanHockeyfan]

Just wondering, is anyone here openly supporting Trump's decision to deport Mexicans? If so, why? I am not trying to judge the views or demands. I would just like to understand them. Not fight them, just understand them. Please quote and respond to me with your views if you are indeed a Trump supporter.

I am (and I am a Trump supporter.)

Reading your post... it sounds more like you do not support deporting illegals at all... only in the case of them being criminals, which everyone can agree upon... nobody is arguing for illegals who are also criminals to stay here... those always get deported/extradited

If you support letting them stay when they have an anchor baby, or if they are benign, or if they have useful talents/skills... then you support letting them stay, not deporting them... hate to break it to ya

For me personally, I wouldn't deport criminals unless they committed malum in se vs. malum prohibitum. Then the culprit would have committed a dangerous evil crime as opposed to a regulatory infraction. I'm not gonna take thousands of dollars to deport a shoplifter. Especially if they only did it once or twice and never did it again. It's just not happening. I would much rather try deporting all the murderers no matter what race they happen to be.

[RoomBot]

Trump reveals plan to finance Mexico border wall with threat to cut off funds


Billionaire Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has finally revealed how he plans to force Mexico to pay for his multibillion-dollar wall along the US southern border, a linchpin of his presidential campaign that has never been fully detailed before.

The key to the wall’s financing, Trump wrote in a two-page memo to the Washington Post, is threatening to halt money transfers from Mexican immigrants in the US to family back home. These remittances amount to nearly $25bn each year, roughly 2% of the Mexican gross domestic product, according to the World Bank. Cutting off these money transfers could doom the Mexican economy to recession and severely damage diplomatic relations.

“It’s an easy decision for Mexico,” Trump wrote in the memo, written on campaign stationary emblazoned with his “Make America Great Again!” motto. “Make a one-time payment of $5-$10bn to ensure that $24bn continues to flow into their country year after year.”

Trump has previously estimated the cost of building the wall at $8bn.

In the memo, entitled Compelling Mexico to Pay for the Wall, Trump said that on the first day of his presidency he would warn the Mexican government of a new regulation that would allow for the government’s seizure of financial assets by immigrants unless they provide documentation establishing “lawful presence in the United States”. According to Trump, “the majority” of the amount sent as remittances comes from undocumented migrants.

The feasibility and legality of such a maneuver is unclear. “Trump is giving an extremely broad definition of this section of the Patriot Act and what it allows, and it’d surely be litigated,” Stuart Anderson, executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy, told the Washington Post. “It would be a large expansion beyond what the text reads.”

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/05/donald-trump-mexico-border-wall-plan-remittances

WE HAVE JUST ONE WORD FOR YOU, Donald JOHN Trump:  BITCOIN!    

[Spendulus]

Just wondering, is anyone here openly supporting Trump's decision to deport Mexicans? If so, why? I am not trying to judge the views or demands. I would just like to understand them. Not fight them, just understand them. Please quote and respond to me with your views if you are indeed a Trump supporter.

I am (and I am a Trump supporter.)

Reading your post... it sounds more like you do not support deporting illegals at all... only in the case of them being criminals, which everyone can agree upon... nobody is arguing for illegals who are also criminals to stay here... those always get deported/extradited

If you support letting them stay when they have an anchor baby, or if they are benign, or if they have useful talents/skills... then you support letting them stay, not deporting them... hate to break it to ya

For me personally, I wouldn't deport criminals unless they committed malum in se vs. malum prohibitum. Then the culprit would have committed a dangerous evil crime as opposed to a regulatory infraction. I'm not gonna take thousands of dollars to deport a shoplifter. Especially if they only did it once or twice and never did it again. It's just not happening. I would much rather try deporting all the murderers no matter what race they happen to be.

Yeah, here the way they get agreement on that is to agree on "felonies."

Unfortunately a lot of felonies are not the major crimes they used to be.

But it's widely recognized there's a problem with murderers and violent criminals going back and forth across the border.  Remember, these people terrorize the illegal mexican population more than they terrorize the US citizens, because it is in those communities they live.

Because of this I believe it's just political theatre, all the nonsense people are saying a la "Fear the Trump Plan."

[Moloch]

I loved the clip where Trump advocates punishing a WOMAN for having an abortion

He did retract his statement the next day, claiming the doctor should go to jail, not the woman... but the video and transcript are quite clear about what he said... its obvious his campaign team advised him to recant his statement...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/30/trump_some_form_of_punishment_for_women_if_abortion_becomes_illegal.html

MATTHEWS: Should the woman be punished? For having an abortion?

...(trump dodging the question like an expert, going to far as to challenge the host about his own religious beliefs)...

MATTHEWS: The churches make their moral judgments, but you’re running for President of the United States to become Chief Executive of the United States. Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no, as a principle?

TRUMP: The answer is there has to be some form of punishment.

MATTHEWS: For the woman?

TRUMP: Yes.

MATTHEWS: 10 cents, 10 years, what?

TRUMP: I don’t know. That I don’t know.

MATTHEWS: Well why not, you take positions on everything else.

FYI, Trump used to be vocally pro-choice... Now that he is campaigning for the republican nomination, he changed his views to be more republican... but he doesn't understand the details, like not sending women to prison for having an abortion...

[Moloch]

Huffington Post reported a zinger... Koch brothers plan to nominate Paul Ryan as the Republican nominee

They know how to buy an election... Probably isn't the first time...

http://www.huffpost.com/us/entry/charles-koch-paul-ryan-nomination_us_57029099e4b083f5c6082b95

Charles Koch is confident House Speaker Paul Ryan could emerge from the Republican National Convention as the party’s nominee if Donald Trump comes up at least 100 delegates shy, he has told friends privately.

Koch believes Ryan would be a “shoo-in” at a contested convention, should the campaign get to that point....

[Wilikon]

Huffington Post reported a zinger... Koch brothers plan to nominate Paul Ryan as the Republican nominee

They know how to buy an election... Probably isn't the first time...

http://www.huffpost.com/us/entry/charles-koch-paul-ryan-nomination_us_57029099e4b083f5c6082b95

Charles Koch is confident House Speaker Paul Ryan could emerge from the Republican National Convention as the party’s nominee if Donald Trump comes up at least 100 delegates shy, he has told friends privately.

Koch believes Ryan would be a “shoo-in” at a contested convention, should the campaign get to that point....

That is why TRUMP needs to win for all the people who are tired of those private companies called the GOP and the DNC. We are seeing the first sign of a real attempt. No future elections will be the same, unless Them Those People keep numbing down We The People.

 

[Rizla2345]

What becomes of Rubio´s delegates? I think he had like 170 when he dropped out. Will that be booked to someone at the convention or earlier?