Very simply, why I cannot stand Donald Trump

[Snouter]

"Asylum seeker" is a fake name for non-white, criminal illegal aliens. Actually the only actual folks who deserve "asylum" or "refugee" status are whites from South Africa who are subject to genocide by the occupying, non-white establishment there at the present time.

 

[OKTexas]

He could have devised a policy to control the border without breaking families.

Build the wall.

Is that the only policy?

That is a policy that wouldn't separate families.

The only one?

Coming in legally is my favorite.


.

Asylum seekers, attempting to come in legally through check points were turned way.

We have limited processing capacity, they have to wait their turn. You're only talking about a few days.


.

 

[Coyote]

"Asylum seeker" is a fake name for non-white, criminal illegal aliens. Actually the only actual folks who deserve "asylum" or "refugee" status are Whites from South Africa who are subject to genocide by the occupying, non-white establishment there at the present time.

Oh go take your racist skinny little snouter ass somewhere else.

 

[Coyote]

Is that the only policy?

That is a policy that wouldn't separate families.

The only one?

Coming in legally is my favorite.


.

Asylum seekers, attempting to come in legally through check points were turned way.

We have limited processing capacity, they have to wait their turn. You're only talking about a few days.


.

No...we don't...or, let's just say we didn't until now. And no we aren't talking about "a few days" - weeks to months. OK, this was a part of the immigration plan for this administration - to deliberately delay and discourage asylum seekers.

And why?

If you complain that most of it is "false" well so what? Most are rejected.

What is in it for you to force desperate people to apply endlessly and then finally resort to illegal entry, still trying for aslylum, only to have their children taken. What's in it for you?

 

[OKTexas]

That is a policy that wouldn't separate families.

The only one?

Coming in legally is my favorite.


.

Asylum seekers, attempting to come in legally through check points were turned way.

We have limited processing capacity, they have to wait their turn. You're only talking about a few days.


.

No...we don't...or, let's just say we didn't until now. And no we aren't talking about "a few days" - weeks to months. OK, this was a part of the immigration plan for this administration - to deliberately delay and discourage asylum seekers.

And why?

If you complain that most of it is "false" well so what? Most are rejected.

What is in it for you to force desperate people to apply endlessly and then finally resort to illegal entry, still trying for aslylum, only to have their children taken. What's in it for you?

Enforcing the law. Under the loose criteria under the maobama regime almost 80% of asylum claims were unfounded. Under the new criteria it be higher than 95%.

But tell the class, what's in it for you to flood the country, it's roads, schools, housing, health care system, judicial system and many others with non-English speaking low educated and low skilled people. While you're at it, tell us when enough will be enough? We probably have 40 million, do you want another 40, 60, 100 million, give us a number at which point we can enforce our laws and not have to FEEL bad about it.


.

 

[Coyote]

The only one?

Coming in legally is my favorite.


.

Asylum seekers, attempting to come in legally through check points were turned way.

We have limited processing capacity, they have to wait their turn. You're only talking about a few days.


.

No...we don't...or, let's just say we didn't until now. And no we aren't talking about "a few days" - weeks to months. OK, this was a part of the immigration plan for this administration - to deliberately delay and discourage asylum seekers.

And why?

If you complain that most of it is "false" well so what? Most are rejected.

What is in it for you to force desperate people to apply endlessly and then finally resort to illegal entry, still trying for aslylum, only to have their children taken. What's in it for you?

Enforcing the law. Under the loose criteria under the maobama regime almost 80% of asylum claims were unfounded. Under the new criteria it be higher than 95%.

But tell the class, what's in it for you to flood the country, it's roads, schools, housing, health care system, judicial system and many others with non-English speaking low educated and low skilled people. While you're at it, tell us when enough will be enough? We probably have 40 million, do you want another 40, 60, 100 million, give us a number at which point we can enforce our laws and not have to FEEL bad about it.


.

What is asylum law?

How is it not being enforced?

Fact: they get a hearing. That's their right, would you agree? If it's "no" they are deported. It it's a "yes" they aren't.

So...unfounded or not - are you stating they shouldn't get the chance?

 

[OKTexas]

Coming in legally is my favorite.


.

Asylum seekers, attempting to come in legally through check points were turned way.

We have limited processing capacity, they have to wait their turn. You're only talking about a few days.


.

No...we don't...or, let's just say we didn't until now. And no we aren't talking about "a few days" - weeks to months. OK, this was a part of the immigration plan for this administration - to deliberately delay and discourage asylum seekers.

And why?

If you complain that most of it is "false" well so what? Most are rejected.

What is in it for you to force desperate people to apply endlessly and then finally resort to illegal entry, still trying for aslylum, only to have their children taken. What's in it for you?

Enforcing the law. Under the loose criteria under the maobama regime almost 80% of asylum claims were unfounded. Under the new criteria it be higher than 95%.

But tell the class, what's in it for you to flood the country, it's roads, schools, housing, health care system, judicial system and many others with non-English speaking low educated and low skilled people. While you're at it, tell us when enough will be enough? We probably have 40 million, do you want another 40, 60, 100 million, give us a number at which point we can enforce our laws and not have to FEEL bad about it.


.

What is asylum law?

How is it not being enforced?

Fact: they get a hearing. That's their right, would you agree? If it's "no" they are deported. It it's a "yes" they aren't.

So...unfounded or not - are you stating they shouldn't get the chance?

I'll be happy to address your questions after you address mine.


.

 

[Snouter]

Oh go take your racist skinny little snouter ass somewhere else.

Nice ad hominem. But since you are obsessed with my body it is about 6'2" 215 lbs.12% body fat with a thick 8 incher, no tats and hairy chest. I have nothing to hide. I simply tell the truth. And the truth is something you hate apparently. Watchugot punk?

 

[Coyote]

Asylum seekers, attempting to come in legally through check points were turned way.

We have limited processing capacity, they have to wait their turn. You're only talking about a few days.


.

No...we don't...or, let's just say we didn't until now. And no we aren't talking about "a few days" - weeks to months. OK, this was a part of the immigration plan for this administration - to deliberately delay and discourage asylum seekers.

And why?

If you complain that most of it is "false" well so what? Most are rejected.

What is in it for you to force desperate people to apply endlessly and then finally resort to illegal entry, still trying for aslylum, only to have their children taken. What's in it for you?

Enforcing the law. Under the loose criteria under the maobama regime almost 80% of asylum claims were unfounded. Under the new criteria it be higher than 95%.

But tell the class, what's in it for you to flood the country, it's roads, schools, housing, health care system, judicial system and many others with non-English speaking low educated and low skilled people. While you're at it, tell us when enough will be enough? We probably have 40 million, do you want another 40, 60, 100 million, give us a number at which point we can enforce our laws and not have to FEEL bad about it.


.

What is asylum law?

How is it not being enforced?

Fact: they get a hearing. That's their right, would you agree? If it's "no" they are deported. It it's a "yes" they aren't.

So...unfounded or not - are you stating they shouldn't get the chance?

I'll be happy to address your questions after you address mine.


.

I looked at the post you made that I responded to an noticed a dirth of ?'s. In fact, just one.

Q: While you're at it, tell us when enough will be enough?

I am not of the belief that this is a zero sum game. We always have room for some and of those sum, are asylum seekers. This is long standing law - both federal and international. We have always been a haven for the persecuted. I don't feel that should change - it's foundational in our nation. And, as I said - it is the current law.

Now I ahve answered your singular question.

Your turn

 

[Snouter]

Slavery, circumcism and other weird shit were also "long standing law," idiot. Coyote, you are intentionally clueless IMO, or uneducated and really stupid.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

And Pence is not the subject of a federal investigation

Because he is not president, once he is he has committed the crime of taking office, see every president since nixon save bush lite who had to pass a stay so to speak to make sure he could not be prosecuted for that heinous act of democracy...the special prosecutor is nothing more than a liberal stick in the spokes to prevent the country from going back to a more moral time...they yield it like the weapon it was intended to be by them.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I concluded Trump's lack of morality by his words and deeds. By his preternatural ability to demean his critics as low I.Q., ugly, slovenly and crooked. His attitude toward immigrants as an 'infestation', rapists, murderers, drug dealers and terrorists.

All things the left [including the media] has used on Americans, now it's their turn

 

[OKTexas]

We have limited processing capacity, they have to wait their turn. You're only talking about a few days.


.

No...we don't...or, let's just say we didn't until now. And no we aren't talking about "a few days" - weeks to months. OK, this was a part of the immigration plan for this administration - to deliberately delay and discourage asylum seekers.

And why?

If you complain that most of it is "false" well so what? Most are rejected.

What is in it for you to force desperate people to apply endlessly and then finally resort to illegal entry, still trying for aslylum, only to have their children taken. What's in it for you?

Enforcing the law. Under the loose criteria under the maobama regime almost 80% of asylum claims were unfounded. Under the new criteria it be higher than 95%.

But tell the class, what's in it for you to flood the country, it's roads, schools, housing, health care system, judicial system and many others with non-English speaking low educated and low skilled people. While you're at it, tell us when enough will be enough? We probably have 40 million, do you want another 40, 60, 100 million, give us a number at which point we can enforce our laws and not have to FEEL bad about it.


.

What is asylum law?

How is it not being enforced?

Fact: they get a hearing. That's their right, would you agree? If it's "no" they are deported. It it's a "yes" they aren't.

So...unfounded or not - are you stating they shouldn't get the chance?

I'll be happy to address your questions after you address mine.


.

I looked at the post you made that I responded to an noticed a dirth of ?'s. In fact, just one.

Q: While you're at it, tell us when enough will be enough?

I am not of the belief that this is a zero sum game. We always have room for some and of those sum, are asylum seekers. This is long standing law - both federal and international. We have always been a haven for the persecuted. I don't feel that should change - it's foundational in our nation. And, as I said - it is the current law.

Now I ahve answered your singular question.

Your turn

If you read the second paragraph it contained 3 questions, pardon my poor punctuation.

I have no problem with asylum seekers, however they can apply form their home countries. And international law requires them to apply in the first country the come to that offers it, that could be Mexico, or Belize which is much closer. There's no reason for them to just show up at our border in mass and overload our systems. If they do they can wait their turn. If they cross illegally they can be prosecuted. A kid is NOT A VISA.

You also didn't address illegals.


.

 

[Coyote]

No...we don't...or, let's just say we didn't until now. And no we aren't talking about "a few days" - weeks to months. OK, this was a part of the immigration plan for this administration - to deliberately delay and discourage asylum seekers.

And why?

If you complain that most of it is "false" well so what? Most are rejected.

What is in it for you to force desperate people to apply endlessly and then finally resort to illegal entry, still trying for aslylum, only to have their children taken. What's in it for you?

Enforcing the law. Under the loose criteria under the maobama regime almost 80% of asylum claims were unfounded. Under the new criteria it be higher than 95%.

But tell the class, what's in it for you to flood the country, it's roads, schools, housing, health care system, judicial system and many others with non-English speaking low educated and low skilled people. While you're at it, tell us when enough will be enough? We probably have 40 million, do you want another 40, 60, 100 million, give us a number at which point we can enforce our laws and not have to FEEL bad about it.


.

What is asylum law?

How is it not being enforced?

Fact: they get a hearing. That's their right, would you agree? If it's "no" they are deported. It it's a "yes" they aren't.

So...unfounded or not - are you stating they shouldn't get the chance?

I'll be happy to address your questions after you address mine.


.

I looked at the post you made that I responded to an noticed a dirth of ?'s. In fact, just one.

Q: While you're at it, tell us when enough will be enough?

I am not of the belief that this is a zero sum game. We always have room for some and of those sum, are asylum seekers. This is long standing law - both federal and international. We have always been a haven for the persecuted. I don't feel that should change - it's foundational in our nation. And, as I said - it is the current law.

Now I ahve answered your singular question.

Your turn

If you read the second paragraph it contained 3 questions, pardon my poor punctuation.

I have no problem with asylum seekers, however they can apply form their home countries. And international law requires them to apply in the first country the come to that offers it, that could be Mexico, or Belize
which is much closer. There's no reason for them to just show up at our border in mass and overload our systems. If they do they can wait their turn. If they cross illegally they can be prosecuted. A kid is NOT A VISA.


.

A kid is not a VISA.

But a kid is not a political tool either.

Families fleeing violence are not going to leave their kids to face that violence. If they did they would be piss poor parents.

They have right, under our law and international law, to a hearing. You can't deny that. Yet Trump's regime is barring them that. That would be against the law. Would you not agree?

 

[del]

Oh go take your racist skinny little snouter ass somewhere else.

Nice ad hominem. But since you are obsessed with my body it is about 6'2" 215 lbs.12% body fat with a thick 8 incher, no tats and hairy chest. I have nothing to hide. I simply tell the truth. And the truth is something you hate apparently. Watchugot punk?

you're pathetic

 

[Darkwind]

His policies and his lack of character. Make no mistake, I am not indicting his supporters. I assume they are all adults and can make up their own minds. But Trump himself is a loathesom person.

He could have devised a policy to control the border without breaking families. But he chose to do just that. Thus he has shown me that he has no empathy for the human race. He uses divisive and intentionally hurtful language to describe these unfortunate people. He has shown a lack of basic respect for his neighbor.

Meanwhile, I, for one, have been taught to treat my neighbor as I would be treated.

Trump decided to cut taxes for those who can afford it while providing no benefit to those who could least afford it. That tired old doctrine of trickle down economics has been roundly disproved as truth.

Trump doesn't just disagree with American institutions but demonizes them. This sets folks up to be cynical at best, dismissive at worst for our most valued institutions such as a free press (not the enemy of the people, but certainly the enemy of tyrants and Authoritarians), our justice system and law enforcement.

I cannot be inspired by someone who comports himself as such a brazen bully. I would opt for inspirational politics, not instigational politics.

I'm sorry, but I was raised as an American and maintain my love for this great country. And I cannot be convinced that selling,out my ordained morality to support such a buffoon.

You can't stand Donald Trump because he is pro-America, and you ******* hate America.

Oh shut up. We like the environment. We like a strong middle class. We like social security and Medicare

A strong middle class and Social Security are mutally exclusive. Social Security looted the middle class and made it dependent on government handouts.

No it didn’t. It allowed people to retire at 62

LOL

People can retire at any age they want. They just need to have the funds to do so. This allowed them to retire at 62 is hilarious.

 

[Markle]

Capitalism is a mixed bag (and before you erupt, I am a supporter of the capitalist economic system) - the mixed bag is in "unfettered". Child labor, the Triangle Shirt Factory fire, coal mine disasters from cutting corners etc...those are "unfettered" capitalism.

When was that?

 

[Darkwind]

Enforcing the law. Under the loose criteria under the maobama regime almost 80% of asylum claims were unfounded. Under the new criteria it be higher than 95%.

But tell the class, what's in it for you to flood the country, it's roads, schools, housing, health care system, judicial system and many others with non-English speaking low educated and low skilled people. While you're at it, tell us when enough will be enough? We probably have 40 million, do you want another 40, 60, 100 million, give us a number at which point we can enforce our laws and not have to FEEL bad about it.


.

What is asylum law?

How is it not being enforced?

Fact: they get a hearing. That's their right, would you agree? If it's "no" they are deported. It it's a "yes" they aren't.

So...unfounded or not - are you stating they shouldn't get the chance?

I'll be happy to address your questions after you address mine.


.

I looked at the post you made that I responded to an noticed a dirth of ?'s. In fact, just one.

Q: While you're at it, tell us when enough will be enough?

I am not of the belief that this is a zero sum game. We always have room for some and of those sum, are asylum seekers. This is long standing law - both federal and international. We have always been a haven for the persecuted. I don't feel that should change - it's foundational in our nation. And, as I said - it is the current law.

Now I ahve answered your singular question.

Your turn

If you read the second paragraph it contained 3 questions, pardon my poor punctuation.

I have no problem with asylum seekers, however they can apply form their home countries. And international law requires them to apply in the first country the come to that offers it, that could be Mexico, or Belize
which is much closer. There's no reason for them to just show up at our border in mass and overload our systems. If they do they can wait their turn. If they cross illegally they can be prosecuted. A kid is NOT A VISA.


.

A kid is not a VISA.

But a kid is not a political tool either.

Families fleeing violence are not going to leave their kids to face that violence. If they did they would be piss poor parents.

They have right, under our law and international law, to a hearing. You can't deny that. Yet Trump's regime is barring them that. That would be against the law. Would you not agree?

Families fleeing violence are NOT required to come to the United States. There are destinations much closer and much safer to drag children too.

 

[Coyote]

What is asylum law?

How is it not being enforced?

Fact: they get a hearing. That's their right, would you agree? If it's "no" they are deported. It it's a "yes" they aren't.

So...unfounded or not - are you stating they shouldn't get the chance?

I'll be happy to address your questions after you address mine.


.

I looked at the post you made that I responded to an noticed a dirth of ?'s. In fact, just one.

Q: While you're at it, tell us when enough will be enough?

I am not of the belief that this is a zero sum game. We always have room for some and of those sum, are asylum seekers. This is long standing law - both federal and international. We have always been a haven for the persecuted. I don't feel that should change - it's foundational in our nation. And, as I said - it is the current law.

Now I ahve answered your singular question.

Your turn

If you read the second paragraph it contained 3 questions, pardon my poor punctuation.

I have no problem with asylum seekers, however they can apply form their home countries. And international law requires them to apply in the first country the come to that offers it, that could be Mexico, or Belize
which is much closer. There's no reason for them to just show up at our border in mass and overload our systems. If they do they can wait their turn. If they cross illegally they can be prosecuted. A kid is NOT A VISA.


.

A kid is not a VISA.

But a kid is not a political tool either.

Families fleeing violence are not going to leave their kids to face that violence. If they did they would be piss poor parents.

They have right, under our law and international law, to a hearing. You can't deny that. Yet Trump's regime is barring them that. That would be against the law. Would you not agree?

Families fleeing violence are NOT required to come to the United States. There are destinations much closer and much safer to drag children too.

It doesn't matter.

 

[Coyote]

Capitalism is a mixed bag (and before you erupt, I am a supporter of the capitalist economic system) - the mixed bag is in "unfettered". Child labor, the Triangle Shirt Factory fire, coal mine disasters from cutting corners etc...those are "unfettered" capitalism.

When was that?

Google it.