Trump's Rookie Mistake

[Correll]

Donald Trump said women should be punished for having abortions. End of story

Donald Trump said if he could help make abortions illegal, women should be punished for having abortions. End of story

to be continued

This has been repeatedly addressed and you are pretending that it has not.

YOu are a liar.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Donald Trump said women should be punished for having abortions. End of story

Donald Trump said if he could help make abortions illegal, women should be punished for having abortions. End of story

to be continued

This has been repeatedly addressed and you are pretending that it has not.

YOu are a liar.

Calling people a 'liar' simply they disagree with you?

You should run for Congress on a Tea Party ticket

 

[JQPublic1]

1. What matter about the Sanctuary City phenomenon is that it is assisting lawbreakers to break US law, and that Democrats are currently doing this (where or when it started, or who was president, is all insignificant now)

1.The use of non federal agencies to enforce federal law is the issue here and An Appeals court has ruled that States are not obliged to do so. That court decision drives the “don’t ask- don’t tell” immigrant status policies of some state and local Sanctuary jurisdictions. Where when and WHY this Sanctuary Movement started is relevant because that knowledge is crucial to putting this issue in the proper political perspective. In the beginning, under Reagan, we were sending Latin American refugees back to their war torn countries to face the severe consequences that awaited them upon return. American religious leaders of diverse faiths stepped up and started the Sanctuary Movement to preclude that horrible fate. Again, nothing they have done abrogates federal immigration laws or the US Constitution according the the opinions handed down by an appeals court.



2. The weighted value of your insistence that proponents of the Sanctuary Movement are assisting lawbreakers barely shows movement on the scales of justice. You, and Politically Offensive Republican News Organizations ( PORNO) such as FOX, have been relentlessly spinning your wheels for naught. Fox, it seems has taken the lead in calling for sanctions against Sanctuary entities; and indeed, the supercilious attitudes of their hosts have produced enmity between themselves and law enforcement agencies of major cities that favor Sanctuaries. Proof? Here we go!

Law Enforcement Experts: Sanctuary City Policies Deter Crime. According to an October 4, 2007 report in Salon, several law enforcement experts -- including "the chiefs of police of the 64 largest police departments in the United States and Canada" -- have found that sanctuary cities policies actually deter crime rather than exacerbate it. The criminal justice coordinator for the City of New York reportedly credited sanctuary city-style policies as "one of the reasons New York City is the country's safest big city"

3. Now you are supporting the idea of Sanctuary Cities. That is reprehensible, and shows the hypocrisy of liberals and democrats who purport to be champions if the US working class (like Hillary Clinton's campaign motto"Fighting for us" ..

Calm down. I don’t like the idea of illegal aliens getting a free pass via the Sanctuary Movement either. But experts on the subject such as the CRS ( Congressional Review Service) and the Law Enforcement experts cited in paragraph 2, have swayed my opinion. I now see that migrants who are not suspected of violating state or local law do not fall within the purview of State and local police jurisprudence. I don’t like it any more than you do but that conference of 64 Chief LEOs have posited several compelling benefits of Sanctuaries: a. lower crime and more local cooperation in solving crime when immigrants are not afraid of local authorities.

b. Limited police resources and assets are not used up by policing under and enforcing federal immigration laws, thus police can focus on criminals, illegal or otherwise, who violate THEIR statutes and criminal codes.

She's fighting for illegal aliens who are robbing US workers of millions of jobs. (and so are you).

3.I can’t speak for Hillary Clinton but here is my POV: The people robbing US workers of jobs are the businesses that hire illegals. I don’t hire any illegals so I ‘m not robbing any American citizen of a job.

The term Sanctuary is being mis-used by people like you GOP types to give he impression that Sanctuary is being granted to illegal aliens when in fact it isn’t. Some states are just not asking for a person’s immigration status when individuals report crimes or are victims of crimes. I have already explained why in paragraph #2

As for ICE or any other federal immigration agency being precluded from apprehending illegal aliens in Sanctuary Cities, that is done by the liberals in those cities, by not honoring the ICE detainers, and releasing the illegals before ICE can come and pick them up (as occurred with Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez), the illegal dirtbag who killed Kate Steinle) the VICTIM >

4.Yes, the Stein shooting is a well publicized incident but it isn’t typical of illegal alien behavior, at least those from Latin countries, as you and TRUMP would have us believe. Granted there ARE SOME criminal elements to be expected in any group of people. illegal or not.

I agree, The culprit is an incorrigible border crosser and petty criminal. and he was released by the SFD months before the shooting occurred. ICE had indeed asked them to hold him for pickup but that really might not have prevented the shooting since Sanchez would likely have made his way back across the border like he had numerous times before. But the SFD release does provide a political expediency for those who want to curtail or get rid of the Sanctuary Movement altogether.

FALSE! As I just noted, the Sanctuary city policy of not holding illegal aliens, and releasing them before ICE can come and pick them up is doing just that. It is "preventing federal enforcement actions"

5.And AGAIN, ICE did not bother to get a warrant that would have made it legal to detain a person beyond the normal please time. Admittedly, that release seemingly bordered on an inane principle in this case since illegal immigrants do not have Constitutional rights. And I suspect the SFD knew Sanchez was a chronic fence jumper. That might have been an additional motive for not holding him since his previous deportations didn’t work…so what is the use?

5. What kind of a moron would ask a question like this >> "What is it about the Sanctuary Movement that drives Republican politicians to want to ban it?" Duh! How about this dum dum >>

6.The Sanctuary Movement is getting a foul rap here and is still the only viable hope for those who flee strife, persecution and civil war in their home countries pursuant to seeking asylum in the USA. It was not designed to protect people who are just coming over for jobs from countries that are not hostile to them. But at the same time, state and local governments run the risk of violating the 4th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution if they detain people who are undocumented but haven’t committed any crime without warrants. Undocumented means you don’t have an I.D. on you. That isn't a crime but is sufficient to suspect that persons an illegal. However, having no I.D. is not proof that they are. And it could take days or even weeks to determine a person is illegal which, in effect, burns up local and state resources to find out as well as room and board expenses. That is some of the reasoning behind the 64 Chief LEO’s support of selective enforcement of Immigration laws.

Yeah, you stand with the Democrats, AND Mexican imperialism, in its invasion and robbery of the USA, and the illegal invaders, and against the American people, especially American workers, as as such, you are a filthy, disgusting TRAITOR, who ought to be arrested for treason (along with all the other sanctuary city miscreants), tried, convicted, and executed.

7.Those are harsh words. Still I will try to explain why my agreement with the Sanctuary Movement is limited to the conceptual vision of the religious leaders who virtually accomplished the impossible. I’ll make this short: It is because the real Sanctuary Movement has little to do with policing of illegals. Refugees are not classified as illegals since they are known to ICE and other immigration authorities. I am not certain about the vetting process of refugees but those are the people intended to take advantage of Sanctuary Cities, et..al…

However, differentiating between illegals and refugees can be burdensome to state and local law enforcement agencies, I understand their focus on their own criminal codes rather than federal immigration laws.

 

[protectionist]

1. What matter about the Sanctuary City phenomenon is that it is assisting lawbreakers to break US law, and that Democrats are currently doing this (where or when it started, or who was president, is all insignificant now)

1.The use of non federal agencies to enforce federal law is the issue here and An Appeals court has ruled that States are not obliged to do so. That court decision drives the “don’t ask- don’t tell” immigrant status policies of some state and local Sanctuary jurisdictions. Where when and WHY this Sanctuary Movement started is relevant because that knowledge is crucial to putting this issue in the proper political perspective. In the beginning, under Reagan, we were sending Latin American refugees back to their war torn countries to face the severe consequences that awaited them upon return. American religious leaders of diverse faiths stepped up and started the Sanctuary Movement to preclude that horrible fate. Again, nothing they have done abrogates federal immigration laws or the US Constitution according the the opinions handed down by an appeals court.



2. The weighted value of your insistence that proponents of the Sanctuary Movement are assisting lawbreakers barely shows movement on the scales of justice. You, and Politically Offensive Republican News Organizations ( PORNO) such as FOX, have been relentlessly spinning your wheels for naught. Fox, it seems has taken the lead in calling for sanctions against Sanctuary entities; and indeed, the supercilious attitudes of their hosts have produced enmity between themselves and law enforcement agencies of major cities that favor Sanctuaries. Proof? Here we go!

Law Enforcement Experts: Sanctuary City Policies Deter Crime. According to an October 4, 2007 report in Salon, several law enforcement experts -- including "the chiefs of police of the 64 largest police departments in the United States and Canada" -- have found that sanctuary cities policies actually deter crime rather than exacerbate it. The criminal justice coordinator for the City of New York reportedly credited sanctuary city-style policies as "one of the reasons New York City is the country's safest big city"

3. Now you are supporting the idea of Sanctuary Cities. That is reprehensible, and shows the hypocrisy of liberals and democrats who purport to be champions if the US working class (like Hillary Clinton's campaign motto"Fighting for us" ..

Calm down. I don’t like the idea of illegal aliens getting a free pass via the Sanctuary Movement either. But experts on the subject such as the CRS ( Congressional Review Service) and the Law Enforcement experts cited in paragraph 2, have swayed my opinion. I now see that migrants who are not suspected of violating state or local law do not fall within the purview of State and local police jurisprudence. I don’t like it any more than you do but that conference of 64 Chief LEOs have posited several compelling benefits of Sanctuaries: a. lower crime and more local cooperation in solving crime when immigrants are not afraid of local authorities.

b. Limited police resources and assets are not used up by policing under and enforcing federal immigration laws, thus police can focus on criminals, illegal or otherwise, who violate THEIR statutes and criminal codes.

She's fighting for illegal aliens who are robbing US workers of millions of jobs. (and so are you).

3.I can’t speak for Hillary Clinton but here is my POV: The people robbing US workers of jobs are the businesses that hire illegals. I don’t hire any illegals so I ‘m not robbing any American citizen of a job.

The term Sanctuary is being mis-used by people like you GOP types to give he impression that Sanctuary is being granted to illegal aliens when in fact it isn’t. Some states are just not asking for a person’s immigration status when individuals report crimes or are victims of crimes. I have already explained why in paragraph #2

As for ICE or any other federal immigration agency being precluded from apprehending illegal aliens in Sanctuary Cities, that is done by the liberals in those cities, by not honoring the ICE detainers, and releasing the illegals before ICE can come and pick them up (as occurred with Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez), the illegal dirtbag who killed Kate Steinle) the VICTIM >

4.Yes, the Stein shooting is a well publicized incident but it isn’t typical of illegal alien behavior, at least those from Latin countries, as you and TRUMP would have us believe. Granted there ARE SOME criminal elements to be expected in any group of people. illegal or not.

I agree, The culprit is an incorrigible border crosser and petty criminal. and he was released by the SFD months before the shooting occurred. ICE had indeed asked them to hold him for pickup but that really might not have prevented the shooting since Sanchez would likely have made his way back across the border like he had numerous times before. But the SFD release does provide a political expediency for those who want to curtail or get rid of the Sanctuary Movement altogether.

FALSE! As I just noted, the Sanctuary city policy of not holding illegal aliens, and releasing them before ICE can come and pick them up is doing just that. It is "preventing federal enforcement actions"

5.And AGAIN, ICE did not bother to get a warrant that would have made it legal to detain a person beyond the normal please time. Admittedly, that release seemingly bordered on an inane principle in this case since illegal immigrants do not have Constitutional rights. And I suspect the SFD knew Sanchez was a chronic fence jumper. That might have been an additional motive for not holding him since his previous deportations didn’t work…so what is the use?

5. What kind of a moron would ask a question like this >> "What is it about the Sanctuary Movement that drives Republican politicians to want to ban it?" Duh! How about this dum dum >>

6.The Sanctuary Movement is getting a foul rap here and is still the only viable hope for those who flee strife, persecution and civil war in their home countries pursuant to seeking asylum in the USA. It was not designed to protect people who are just coming over for jobs from countries that are not hostile to them. But at the same time, state and local governments run the risk of violating the 4th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution if they detain people who are undocumented but haven’t committed any crime without warrants. Undocumented means you don’t have an I.D. on you. That isn't a crime but is sufficient to suspect that persons an illegal. However, having no I.D. is not proof that they are. And it could take days or even weeks to determine a person is illegal which, in effect, burns up local and state resources to find out as well as room and board expenses. That is some of the reasoning behind the 64 Chief LEO’s support of selective enforcement of Immigration laws.

Yeah, you stand with the Democrats, AND Mexican imperialism, in its invasion and robbery of the USA, and the illegal invaders, and against the American people, especially American workers, as as such, you are a filthy, disgusting TRAITOR, who ought to be arrested for treason (along with all the other sanctuary city miscreants), tried, convicted, and executed.

7.Those are harsh words. Still I will try to explain why my agreement with the Sanctuary Movement is limited to the conceptual vision of the religious leaders who virtually accomplished the impossible. I’ll make this short: It is because the real Sanctuary Movement has little to do with policing of illegals. Refugees are not classified as illegals since they are known to ICE and other immigration authorities. I am not certain about the vetting process of refugees but those are the people intended to take advantage of Sanctuary Cities, et..al…

However, differentiating between illegals and refugees can be burdensome to state and local law enforcement agencies, I understand their focus on their own criminal codes rather than federal immigration laws.

We are talking about illegal aliens. There is no such thing as an illegal alien who has not violated the law. ALL illegal aliens are law violators. Either they came across the border without being inspected by immigration authorities (A CRIME), or they overstayed a visa. Lawbreakers in either case.

Maybe you like writing books. I don't. And I'm not really interested in reading the ones you write either. I read your Post # 83, and have founds holes in it big enough to drive buses through. Am I going to comment on all the false things you wrote ? No I'm not, because you are writing posts that are too long, and to exhausting to respond to meticulously. If you want specific responses., you will just have to write shorter posts.

 

[protectionist]

It is obvious that Abortion is not a top issue with him and he was ignorant of this legal detail.

He was very much "out of touch" with the Pro-life groups.

Once informed of his mistake, he quickly corrected it, and reversed his position on this.

It is likely that he will try to appoint Justices that lean pro-life.

What part of this is confusing or surprising to you?

He was not ignorant of any legal detail.

Who cares about pro-life groups ? If they think women should casually get abortion without good cause, and not be punished for that, they're wrong. (Trump was right)

He did not make a mistake. His campaign people thought he did. They were wrong.

 

[candycorn]

Trump has been a liberal his entire life and is now trying to con the country into thinking he's a conservative. Just imagine how many rookie mistakes the completely unqualified, undisciplined, hotheaded Trump would make.

His public persona of bluster and temper is tool designed for use in negotiations and deal making.

There has been a LOT of campaigning. Can you name another rookie mistake or is this the first one?

Skipping the last Iowa debate.
Saying he wants to nail his daughter
Making fun of a man with a birth defect
Stating a woman was on her period
mocking Christians
Calling Mexicans rapists

Its exactly as Dennis Hopper said in "Speed"; if you're poor and act like he does, you're crazy. If you're rich and act like he does, you're excentric. As you can tell from the cooling poll numbers and Cruz's resurgence, the public is tiring of the act.

 

[JQPublic1]

We are talking about illegal aliens. There is no such thing as an illegal alien who has not violated the law. ALL illegal aliens are law violators. Either they came across the border without being inspected by immigration authorities (A CRIME), or they overstayed a visa. Lawbreakers in either case.

1.It was you who introduced Sanctuary Cities into this exchange as "proof" that democrats favored illegal immigration. I have shown that conservative news media has mis-used the term and confused the Sanctuary Movement with State's prerogatives not to spend their time and effort chasing and detaining suspected illegals; especially since an appeals court decision, the CRS, and large metropolitan area police chiefs (64) have opined they have that option..

2. Of course illegal immigrants have broken federal immigration laws and it is the feds job to get them. It is NOT incumbent upon State and local police agencies to act like federal agencies and to hold or detain anyone without a warrant unless they are suspected of committing a crime within the purview of the arresting agency. Civil lawsuits for unlawful detention can be devastating to state and local budgets.

Maybe you like writing books. I don't. And I'm not really interested in reading the ones you write either. I read your Post # 83, and have founds holes in it big enough to drive buses through. Am I going to comment on all the false things you wrote ? No I'm not, because you are writing posts that are too long, and to exhausting to respond to meticulously. If you want specific responses., you will just have to write shorter posts.

1. My response to you was not solely for YOUR benefit. I couldn't care less if you read it or not; someone will..

2. If you found "holes" in my post you could have used the quote tool to address those "holes" one at a time. You needn't respond to the whole post at once.

3. Again, I don't care if you respond or not. However, I usually do write much shorter responses but you attacked my credibility and behaved so rudely that I felt compelled to present a more thorough case. If it is too much for you to deal with, OH WELL. I don't make special concessions to adversaries.

 

[protectionist]

1. My response to you was not solely for YOUR benefit. I couldn't care less if you read it or not; someone will..

2. If you found "holes" in my post you could have used the quote tool to address those "holes" one at a time. You needn't respond to the whole post at once.

3. Again, I don't care if you respond or not. However, I usually do write much shorter responses but you attacked my credibility and behaved so rudely that I felt compelled to present a more thorough case. If it is too much for you to deal with, OH WELL. I don't make special concessions to adversaries.

I reject the notion that you have shown ANYTHING about Sanctuary Cities. Your Post # 83 was TOO LONG, and I did not read it, and I'm not going to. From my perspective, it doesn't exist. If you want to be taken seriously about the Sanctuary city issue, you state your position here now, briefly, without writing a whole book about it, but no matter what you say, you can't defend the disregard for US law. You are just being a common criminal, like all the other supporters of this despicable insult to our ancestors, who created these immigration laws, to protect us from the long list of harms of immigration.

Harms of immigration

1. Americans lose jobs.

2. Wage reduction.

3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($123 Billion/year).

5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6. Increased crime.

7. Increased traffic congestion.

8. Increased pollution.

9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11. Overcrowding in government offices.

12. Overcrowding in schools.

13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14. Cultural erosion.

15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)

16. Introduction of foreign diseases.

17. Influx of terrorists.

 

[protectionist]

Skipping the last Iowa debate.
Saying he wants to nail his daughter
Making fun of a man with a birth defect
Stating a woman was on her period
mocking Christians
Calling Mexicans rapists

Its exactly as Dennis Hopper said in "Speed"; if you're poor and act like he does, you're crazy. If you're rich and act like he does, you're excentric. As you can tell from the cooling poll numbers and Cruz's resurgence, the public is tiring of the act.

Cruz DOESN'T have a resurgence. He's is getting delegates against the will of the American people. He lost the vote in Louisiana, yet he got most of the delegates. Similar situation exist in Virginia, Kentucky, et al states. He got all the delegates in Colorado, where Trump was overwhelmingly the favorite to win in an election that was not permitted to be held. That's not a resurgence. that is Cruz taking advantage of an unAmerican, despicable desregard for the American voter, by GOP party bosses, who are selecting the candidates of THEIR choice, in back rooms with locked doors, and bribing delegates with all-expenses paid vacations and similar goodies.

This isn't the FREEDOM that 400,000 US military members sacrificed their lives for in World War II, to defend. This is the big (huge) issue of this campaign, not Trump's trash-talking, or his relative political inexperience (which actually is probably a good thing)

Do We Really Have FREEDOM, in America ?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Stick to the topic of the thread, please. It's not about immigration or sanctuary cities. Thanks

 

[JQPublic1]

1. My response to you was not solely for YOUR benefit. I couldn't care less if you read it or not; someone will..

2. If you found "holes" in my post you could have used the quote tool to address those "holes" one at a time. You needn't respond to the whole post at once.

3. Again, I don't care if you respond or not. However, I usually do write much shorter responses but you attacked my credibility and behaved so rudely that I felt compelled to present a more thorough case. If it is too much for you to deal with, OH WELL. I don't make special concessions to adversaries.

I reject the notion that you have shown ANYTHING about Sanctuary Cities. Your Post # 83 was TOO LONG, and I did not read it, and I'm not going to. From my perspective, it doesn't exist. If you want to be taken seriously about the Sanctuary city issue, you state your position here now, briefly, without writing a whole book about it, but no matter what you say, you can't defend the disregard for US law. You are just being a common criminal, like all the other supporters of this despicable insult to our ancestors, who created these immigration laws, to protect us from the long list of harms of immigration.

Harms of immigration

1. Americans lose jobs.

2. Wage reduction.

3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($123 Billion/year).

5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6. Increased crime.

7. Increased traffic congestion.

8. Increased pollution.

9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11. Overcrowding in government offices.

12. Overcrowding in schools.

13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14. Cultural erosion.

15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)

16. Introduction of foreign diseases.

17. Influx of terrorists.

The OP is long and it is painfully apparent that you didn't read that either.

 

[protectionist]

The OP is long and it is painfully apparent that you didn't read that either.

I read it , and refuted it, in Post # 38. Ho hum.

 

[JQPublic1]

The OP is long and it is painfully apparent that you didn't read that either.

I read it , and refuted it, in Post # 38. Ho hum.

No you didn't and you didn't read post #90 either!

 

[protectionist]

No you didn't and you didn't read post #90 either!

I read both, and you have one consistency. Consistent NONSENSE.

Ho hum.

 

[JQPublic1]

No you didn't and you didn't read post #90 either!

I read both, and you have one consistency. Consistent NONSENSE.

Ho hum.

Mission accomplished... I've got you hallucinating. Let the record of our past conversation speak for itself and let any interested readers decide who they want to believe. See ya on the next battlefield..heh heh heh!

 

[protectionist]

Mission accomplished... I've got you hallucinating. Let the record of our past conversation speak for itself and let any interested readers decide who they want to believe. See ya on the next battlefield..heh heh heh!

I forgot what got us talking in the first place. Wasn't the thread about abortion ? I remember saying something about that.