rickyp wrote:fate
You know that Ken Starr was one of three investigators who ruled on Fosters death? You think its likely Starr needed video evidence to find guilt?

For murder? Sure.

This is what I'm referring to Bbauska in terms of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Its the unrealistic pursuit of suppossed vast crimes by the Clinton's that they always seem to manage to keep hidden and avoid responsibility. This, despite the fact that Bill couldn't even get away with limited sexual misconduct with an intern... And yet all these other crimes go unpunished...

I've figured out who you are . . . Paul Begala. It all makes sense now.

Hillary may win. However, it won't be because anyone actually trusts her

They just have to trust her and her policies more than the republican nominee.

I wish Americans took their votes that seriously. However, as we saw with Obama, many people will vote for Hillary . . . just because she is a woman. As sad as that is, it's true.

BTW. If you try to parse the polling on her trust ... Many on the left don't trust her, because they feel she won't try and enact policies that they espouse.

Nope, because they know she is in the pocket of Goldman-Sachs.

She'll win over. . . Over 75% of Hispanics

No she won't. I'll give you 4:1.

But its good to know you can read the writing on the wall.

If she wins, she will finish turning the US into a formerly great nation, something Obama started.

Ricky

She'll win over. . . Over 75% of Hispanics

Fate

No she won't. I'll give you 4:1.

In a potential 2016 presidential election matchup, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would beat Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) among Latinos, a poll out Monday shows.
Clinton is the favorite to Rubio 66 percent to 28 percent, the survey from Latino Decisions reports. Rubio also loses in a potential matchup against Vice President Joe Biden 60 percent to 28 percent.

Math may not be your strong suit. Or the use of evidence. If you exclude the undecided in the poll, Hillary is at 78% of decided over Rubio.
And this poll is before the gutless responses to Trump that almost all republican candidates have displayed.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/h ... z3fs3HkIbX

There's a general acceptance that 13,000,000 illegal aren't going to be deported. Its not even economically feasible. The resources to actually make it happen, would be ridiculous. The collapse of the agriculture and meat packing industries due to labor shortage disastrous.
So there has to be a reasonable accommodation. But that's politically untenable in the party of Trump.
Hillary has the winning policy on the issue. And this is the prime issue to Hispanics.

fate

Nope, because they know she is in the pocket of Goldman-Sachs

Other than Bernie, who isn't?
Or in the pocket of some other billionaires? If you are Republican You can't complain about big money in politics with any credibility. Agreement with Citizens United is a litmus test for the right.

She at least is talking about campaign finance laws. The influence of Sanders and Elizabeth Warren will matter on this issue, and force Hillary to take positions that recognize the importance of addressing the corruptible influence of ridiculous money in the political process.
Once in office, they might have to hold her feet to the fire to get action. Or not. Since Republicans will have been beat despite the loose money rules they like, they might be ready for change too.

rickyp wrote:Once in office, they might have to hold her feet to the fire to get action.

From presumptive nominee to presumptive president. She's still got a really, really long way to go. The nomination is probably hers to lose, but I think there's a real possibility that may happen.

geojanes

From presumptive nominee to presumptive president. She's still got a really, really long way to go. The nomination is probably hers to lose, but I think there's a real possibility that may happen

True.
But if the current issues remain the key ones the election is fought over:
- the economy
- the status of immigration and immigrants
- inequality
- foreign relations
- employment laws
- the environment
- abortion rights
- marriage rights of gays...

then American attitudes on the above seem pretty baked in .... And the ability of more moderate republicans to veer towards the mainstream in search of support, will be difficult because they need to respond to an extreme base to get the nomination... (see immigration)
So do attitudes towards Hillary. So hoping to derail her with a personal scandal seems unlikely though its more than likely someone will try an raise an issue.

rickyp wrote:Ricky

She'll win over. . . Over 75% of Hispanics

Fate

No she won't. I'll give you 4:1.

In a potential 2016 presidential election matchup, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would beat Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) among Latinos, a poll out Monday shows.
Clinton is the favorite to Rubio 66 percent to 28 percent, the survey from Latino Decisions reports. Rubio also loses in a potential matchup against Vice President Joe Biden 60 percent to 28 percent.

Math may not be your strong suit. Or the use of evidence. If you exclude the undecided in the poll, Hillary is at 78% of decided over Rubio.

Well then, if you actually believe that, let's make it $100.

Or, are you simply lying?

And this poll is before the gutless responses to Trump that almost all republican candidates have displayed.

Dumb.

Why attack Trump and alienate his supporters? When he drops out, you will want them to support you, so why attack their man when you perceive him to be a blip on the radar?

There's a general acceptance that 13,000,000 illegal aren't going to be deported. Its not even economically feasible. The resources to actually make it happen, would be ridiculous. The collapse of the agriculture and meat packing industries due to labor shortage disastrous.

Labor shortage?

HAHAHAHAHA!

There is no shortage of workers. We have plenty of unemployed and underemployed. It's called "capitalism." When employers pay what workers will accept, boom.

We don't need to deport anyone. Require tamper-proof ID's for government benefits and employment and the problem will resolve itself.

So there has to be a reasonable accommodation. But that's politically untenable in the party of Trump.
Hillary has the winning policy on the issue. And this is the prime issue to Hispanics.

Oh, so the prime issue for Hispanics is bringing in more illegals? Really?

Btw, the "Party of Trump . . ." what a crock. He was pro-choice, pro-illegal immigrant, pro-universal healthcare (like Canada), and pro-Hillary for VP--all within the last 8 years. So, don't tell me he's a Republican. He's a Democrat running a con game.

fate

Why attack Trump and alienate his supporters? When he drops out, you will want them to support you, so why attack their man when you perceive him to be a blip on the radar?

Why? Because attacking ignorance and bigotry is the right thing to do. And because winning the Republican nomination by pandering to bigots will be remembered when the federal election comes around.

rickyp wrote:fate

Why attack Trump and alienate his supporters? When he drops out, you will want them to support you, so why attack their man when you perceive him to be a blip on the radar?

Why? Because attacking ignorance and bigotry is the right thing to do. And because winning the Republican nomination by pandering to bigots will be remembered when the federal election comes around.

Yes, pointing out that some illegal aliens are criminals, that's bigotry. Tell the Steinle family that.

Look, why don't you worry about your own party--the national socialists or whatever they are. If you're convinced the GOP is the party of bigots, there's nothing to worry about: Hillary will win and make the trains run on time.

Logically:

Given: It is illegal to enter the United States w/o authorization.
Given: Aliens are entering w/o authorization

If/then: If aliens are entering the US w/o authorization, then that is an illegal act
If/then: If aliens have committed an illegal act, then they are illegal aliens.
If/then: If illegal aliens are/have committed illegal acts via the illegal entrance to the United States, then they are criminals.

Show me where the logic is faulty. I do not like/trust Trump. Look at the issue and show where he is faulty.

Just because the great statistician and logician from Toronto does not like what is said does not make it false. I am making an assumption, but I will guess that you can decipher if/then statements. Show me where the logic is false. If the logic is true, then just say that it is, but that you don't want to hear it.

bbauska wrote:Logically:

Given: It is illegal to enter the United States w/o authorization.
Given: Aliens are entering w/o authorization

If/then: If aliens are entering the US w/o authorization, then that is an illegal act
If/then: If aliens have committed an illegal act, then they are illegal aliens.
If/then: If illegal aliens are/have committed illegal acts via the illegal entrance to the United States, then they are criminals.

Show me where the logic is faulty.

A number of the undocumented were brought to this country as children. These people committed no crime, rather they are victims of their parents' crime.

geojanes wrote:

bbauska wrote:Logically:

Given: It is illegal to enter the United States w/o authorization.
Given: Aliens are entering w/o authorization

If/then: If aliens are entering the US w/o authorization, then that is an illegal act
If/then: If aliens have committed an illegal act, then they are illegal aliens.
If/then: If illegal aliens are/have committed illegal acts via the illegal entrance to the United States, then they are criminals.

Show me where the logic is faulty.

A number of the undocumented were brought to this country as children. These people committed no crime, rather they are victims of their parents' crime.

Is there an age limit on illegal entry? (No)
How about I stipulate children as not being part of this discussion. Can you then follow the logic?

what trump said

" When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best.” He added, “They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

what fate interprets that to mean

Yes, pointing out that some illegal aliens are criminals, that's bigotry

How Hispanics actually react:

Such claims were “absurd”, said Lisa Navarrete, a spokeswoman for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organisation
Navarrete said the claim that Mexicans seeking work in America were rapists was “offensive”.
“This is an exceedingly silly man, who has no idea what he’s talking about,” she said.
Navarrete said although Trump’s statements had “no basis in fact”, they fitted in with a perception of the party he sought to represent.
“Part of the reason why Latinos are so alienated from the Republican party these days is there’s a sense that there are people who actually believe [what Trump said],” she said.

And when other republicans don't call him on his BS they make the path to the presidency that much easier for Hillary.

bbauska

Look at the issue and show where he is fault

y
Start with the fact that most illegal immigrants are coming from Central America now.
Then start with the fact that, although they may be illegally entering the country, they are not, quoting Trump; "bringing drugs. Bringing Crime. Rapists..."

as numerous studies over the past 100 years have shown—immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or be behind bars than the native-born, and high rates of immigration are not associated with higher rates of crime. This holds true for both legal immigrants and the undocumented, regardless of their country of origin or level of education.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-f ... nd-crime-0

Trump is a no nothing blow hard. he has no more evidence for his claims on criminal activity by illegal aliens (for him they are apparently all Mexicans) then he did for Obama's false birth certificate. (Still looking for it in Hawaii isn't he? ..)

Illegal aliens are almost exclusively economic refugees. Those undocumented that have been in the US for years usually are tax paying and law abiding.... outside of their immigration status.Most have established families and lives in their communities and are productive members of society.
Hispanics are their community. And when Trump and his defenders on the right demonize these people they alienate the entire community who know the truth about their friends and neighbors and family members. They are mostly just ordinary people trying to make a living and improve their children s lives.

When viewed that way, the way they actually are, accommodating a path to citizenship becomes a lot more palatable to most Americans. Especially to those employers in certain industries who have exploited them as cheap labor .

bbauska wrote:
Is there an age limit on illegal entry? (No)
How about I stipulate children as not being part of this discussion. Can you then follow the logic?

Of course. They should be a part of a discussion, but you can say that they are not part of this one. That said, most of us are descendants of migrants who came to these shores when the rules were very, very different. If the laws we have in place today had been in place in the 19th century, virtually no one I know would be here today, and more importantly, the country certainly wouldn't be as great. If a citizen understands that the greatness of American is, in part, derived from wave after wave of immigration during an age of:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,"

Then a citizen might have a lot of sympathy for otherwise law-abiding undocumented immigrants who have the misfortune of seeking to better their lives after it was made illegal.

I don't know whether we get their best or worst, but after just one generation they can become our best, and often do.