Donald Trump’s Demagoguery Comes Home To Roost
At a town hall last night in New Hampshire, it became clear just what kind of supporters Donald Trump's demagoguery is attracting.
Less than twenty-four hours after the second Presidential debate ended, Donald Trump was back in the news again but this time it was less about what he said than what he didn’t say:
Confronted with a questioner who called Muslims a “problem” and asserted that President Obama is a Muslim and not American, Donald Trump did not correct him on Thursday night.
“We have a problem in this country, it’s called Muslims. Our current President is one. We know he’s not even an American,” said a questioner at a town hall in New Hampshire. “We have training camps growing where they want to kill us. That’s my question, when can we get rid of them?”
“A lot of people are saying that and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening out there. We’re going to be looking at that and a lot of different things,” Trump responded.
Trump has been a leading proponent of the discredited theory that Obama was not born in the United States.
“The media wants to make this issue about Obama. The bigger issue is that Obama is waging a war against Christians in this country. Christians need support in this country. Their religious liberties are at stake,” a Trump campaign spokeswoman said in an email.
Here’s the video of the exchange:
As is the nature of all political speeches today, word of what happened in New Hampshire broke almost immediately as reporters who were on the scene, as well as others who were watching the speech on television, immediately took to social media. The reactions quickly broke down into two camps.
First, of course, there were those who immediately jumped on the fact that the person asking the question had repeated the long-standing myth on some conservatives that the President is either a Muslim or was not born in the United States, or both. Given Trump’s history as the most public face of the so-called “birther” movement thanks to his months-long obsession with the issue of the President’s birth in 2011 that ended with the White House producing the President’s birth certificate, the fact that Trump appeared to agree with the assertion raised eyebrows. In fact, Trump has not spoken directly about the birther issues or his 2011 crusade at all during the course of this campaign, telling reporters who asking the question that he’s ‘not campaigning on that’ when asked if he still believes what he said four years ago when he claimed the President was not born in the United States.
Beyond the birther issue, though, Trump’s apparent agreement with the idea that Muslim-Americans were a problem and needed to be deported, and that there are “training camps” for terrorists in the United States. Rather than refute the assertion, or basically tell this guy that he was crazy, Trump seemed to accept the premise of his question and said that it was something that should be “looked into.” This isn’t the first time that Trump has flirted with outright bigotry, of course, and given the fact that his entire campaign is based on appealing to the worst aspects of American politics, it isn’t likely to be the last. This would seem to be especially true given the fact that polling has consistently shown that Trump supporters are far more likely to believe that the President is foreign born and/or a Muslim than the supporters of any other candidate. In addition to be being a good example of the relative intelligence of his supporters, this is fairly good example of the kind of people that Trump’s nativist demagoguery is attracting, and it isn’t very pretty.
Trump’s response and the way he handled this obvious nut stands in start contrast to how Arizona Senator John McCain handled a similar situation back when he was running for President. In October 2008 at a town hall event in Minnesota, a woman told the Senator that she was concerned about then Senator Obama because he was “an Arab” who couldn’t be trusted. McCain’s response earned him headlines that day, although it probably didn’t help him with the hard right wing of his party:
Rather than responding like this, or pointing out to this audience member, that the vast majority Muslim-Americans are good Americans, and that there is no evidence of “training camps” in the United States except in the bizarrely wired minds of the people who write at places like World Net Daily and Breitbart News, Trump clearly seemed to agree with what the gentleman was saying. The fact that Trump didn’t do this speaks volumes about the kind of campaign he is running, the kind of people he is rallying to his side, and the kind of person he is, and none of it is very good. In later statements, Trump’s campaign tried to down play the significance of what happened at the town hall. One Trump aide emailed reporters claiming that Trump was talking about protecting the religious liberties of Christians notwithstanding the fact that this clearly wasn’t even the subject matter of the question that was asked. Trump’s Campaign Manager Cory Lewandowski said that Trump was specifically addressing the question about “training camps.” something he repeated in an interview with The Washington Post’s Robert Costa. No matter how you spin what happened last night, though, the implications of what was said, and how Trump reacted, speak for themselves and they say a lot about the kind of campaign he is running and the kind of people he is appealing to.
As has become inevitable every time something outrageous happens in connection with the Trump campaign, people are speculating about what this might mean for the race going forward. Kevin Drum suggests that this incident, combined with what many seem to agree with a bad debate performance on Trump’s part and signs the candidates like Carly Fiorina may be on the rise, could be the beginning of the end for Trump. Even before last night’s event in New Hampshire, some analysts were suggesting that early numbers connected to the debate were suggesting that Trump may be started to head downward in the polls. Perhaps this will happen, but it’s worth remembering that we’ve been here before. When Donald Trump started his campaign by calling Mexican rapists, it was suggested that his rhetoric would bring his campaign to a quick end. When he insulted John McCain’s military service and many Republicans stood up to condemn him, everyone waited for the inevitable drop in the polls. When he attacked Fox News host Megyn Kelly in a rather vile manner because she asked tough questions at a debate, people once again thought we were seeing the beginning of the end. The same predictions were made when Trump attacked Carly Fiorina based not on her policy positions, but her physical appearance. I too have, admittedly, forecast Trump’s demise more than one over the past three months (see here, here, and here for example), and all of them have been wrong. Perhaps the debate and incidents like this will be what finally turns Republican voters off, but we’ve all said that before and it didn’t happen. The people supporting his campaign have proven to be almost immune to any criticism, and they cheer him on every time he does something that would shock any decent person. Perhaps they too have a breaking point, and perhaps we’ve reached it, but until I actually see the poll numbers dropping I’m not going to believe it.
Meh. Some moderate R’s still deny it, despite all evidence, but in fact this is what the Republican party stands for.
Fortunately there is a reasonable alternative – but if the R’s keep up their irresponsible appeals to the worst parts of humanity we are likely to see overreach on the left due to the lack of a balance of power.
This is not just fun and games-style “irritate a liberal” type rhetoric. Republicans are playing with fire, and endangering the entire US, when they fail to act as a responsible and loyal opposition party to the Democrats.
If we had an actual free and independent press, at least one of those reporters would have replied “Yes, but you are campaigning on your skills as a negotiator. The voters need to know if you’re a credulous, gullible mark.”
“
Donald Trump’sRepublicans’ Demagoguery Comes Home To Roost”FTFY. The McCain example you provided is one of the very few times any prominent Republican has pushed back against this type of nonsense. Instead, we have seen replies from other candidates neither pushing back nor agreeing with such statements. The Republican base believes it, and Republican leaders are playing along, hoping to not fall off the back of the tiger they have been riding to victory.
Four years ago Obama delivered a crushing put down to Trump at the WH correspondents dinner. It struck me as out of character that he wasted the long form birth certificate shot on Trump. Maybe he was distracted by preparing to kill bin Laden that same night. I sometimes wonder if this presidential run isn’t misdirected revenge or compensation for that embarrassment. Seeing that clip last night made me wonder again.
I think this is the last nail in the coffin. I think it doomed Trump. (Actually I don’t think this hurts him a bit with the base. Doug pointed out Trump may have already peaked. I think his turn as flavor-of-the-month was already past its use-by date. Bright, shiny Carson or Fiorina. But the supposedly liberal MSM will blame it on this incident. It’s simple enough for even them to understand and it allows a pretense that Republicans have a shred of decency left.)
This should help shore up his poll numbers. Had he called a few women pigs and suggested a return to slavery it might have helped even more.
This is the problem that happens when you dance with crazy. There are tens of millions of Republicans out there. If even a tiny fraction are crazy, that’s thousands of deeply crazy people out there (and that’s not to mention the many crazy people who aren’t associated with any party but gravitate toward any perceived outsider). Any political leader is going to have to know how to deal with crazy people. I once spent some time with the staffs of John Linder and Newt Gingrich and they could tell you about all kinds of crazy letters they got.
Trump has been swimming in these waters for a while and showing not only an inability to deal with crazy but a willingness to goad crazy. And now it’s come back to bite him.
There is no way this hurts his support. He is getting about a third of Republican voters right now. It would be impossible to claim with a straight face that fewer than a third of Republicans agree with the moron who asked the question.
Snark aside, I do think we’ve reached Peak Trump. The question I find fascinating is what he’ll do when his polls start to drop. I don’t think he’s got the stomach to stay in when he’s in third or fourth place. He may have to pull a Perot.
This incident in itself won’t hurt Trump, because lots of people who support him view anybody compalining about this a PC ninny at best, traitor at worst. However, it does point out a chink in Trump’s armor that I think in long term will doom him to be a factional candidate, at best. His whole strategy is to up the ante on crazy all the time, to get headlines. The problem is that there is a limit how much crazy stuff you can say, when you start your campaign with talk about Mexicans being rapists, without being pushed into David Duke territory. So, Trump is facing a dilemma: he can keep saying his old offensive stuff, and then it’s not news anymore and he is starting to sound stale, or he can say more offensive things, but then he risks going beyond even what our media environment allows people say.
The Fiorina thing is a case in point : Trump got away with saying crazy shit about women for decades, and he did so in the first debate. So he upped the ante with Fiorina, causing real problem for himself, both because she is now an insider and because deep inside Republicans know that if their candidate talks about Hillary’s looks, she wins the presidency, period. So, instead of upping the ante, he is forced to kinda apologize and promise to behave in the future. This, of course, negates his main asset: the sense he can do and say anything.
Same goes for this incident: yeah he kinda agrees with that crazy guy in the video, but he doesn’t develop the issue and gives the standard political response of “we’ll look into that,” and then next day claims he thought his interlocutor was talking about Christian religious freedom. That doesn’t sound like The Donald The Invincible, but just like another right wing politician..
I get the impression that a lot of Trump’s supporters would dearly love to let out their inner brat but realize they would be immediately fired/divorced if they tried. Trump is their Inner Child.
“You’ve got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know… morons.” – Blazing Saddles
This may be the beginning of the end. Who knows? But whoever comes next will have to do Trump in a different voice. I’m guessing Carly Fiorina is going to be the next one, the positive Trump, the one with appeal.
What’s going to be interesting is when the Democrats start their debates. Hillary Clinton is a terrible candidate, but she’s less an alien than Trump or Ben Carson and she has actual experience talking about real policy to people in public. Sanders is going to be good for her, unless he ends beating her, about which who knows? Either way, the contrast between the two sides is going to be enormous. It’s going to be the difference between the soothing humane banality of NPR (which features actual experts and real events) versus Fox News.
@gVOR08:
You’re dead-on accurate on that one.
I’ve always thought that Trump, being the thin-skinned narcissist that he is, was incredibly offended at being the subject of Obama’s jokes at that dinner, and like a Mob chief, he’s wanted to inflict damage on Obama ever since.
Is he apologizing?
No.
This isn’t the beginning of the end.
@Modulo Myself:
A kinder, gentler fascist xenophobe oligarch?
@DrDaveT:
Well, she doesn’t say America sucks. Fiorina’s optimism is about believing America needs more war and secular liberals are selling fetuses on the black market. Also, Jesus and morality. That’s pure Reagan. She’s going to flame out too, and she’ll be followed by even more nonsense.
@DrDaveT: Yes. I think you understand the situation perfectly.
Last night Maddow played an ad Boxer used against Fiorina. 30,000 laid off and jobs moved to China figured prominently. Very effective, and no reason it won’t work again. I do think Fiorina has a good shot at flavor-of-the-month with the base. But it should be obvious to establishment money she hasn’t a prayer in the general. I’m starting to see visions of Kasich/Rubio bumper stickers.
@Modulo Myself:
Hillary is a terrible candidate compared to whom? Obama, for sure, but she defeated him in most debates without breaking a sweat.. Also, keep in mind that she won more primary votes in history than anyone else- besides Obama, and that she did so while forging a deep emotional connection with her voters.
I have to say Doug, there are training camps for terrorists in the United States. They are all run by right wing militias and filled with the Last True American Patriots. ™
@gVOR08:
Problem with Kasich/Rubio or Bush/Kasich or Rubio/Kasich is that nobody wants the general GOP stuff. Nobody. Tax cuts, SS privatization, blah government regulation blah–they’re corpses. And Obama has basically taken moderate GOP foreign policy, updated it, and made it his own.
A good analysis over at the New Yorker of what will probably do in Trump: Lack of planning for the Middle Slog.
It’s like the old saying: Naive generals concentrate on strategy; great generals concentrate on logistics. And Trump ain’t got no logistics smarts. (He’s also doesn’t have the backup crew, or at least one that isn’t sniping at each other.)
A little different from real estate investment, where you just have to bully the other side into accepting your offer, hmmm?
@Modulo Myself: You are right, they ARE all interchangeable, aren’t they?
Doug:
And despite that history, he was warmly embraced by Mitt, the supposed ‘moderate’ and ‘elder statesman.’ This is what Mitt said when Trump endorsed him (2/2/12):
You had the appropriate reaction:
A few months later, Mitt further embraced Trump, promoting a chance to “Dine with Donald Trump and Mitt Romney.” The promotional poster can be seen via the magic of the Wayback Machine.
Also, Joan Walsh recently reminded us how “Romney made his own descent into jokey birtherism, telling a crowd in Michigan:”
So the establishment Republicans now appalled by Trump and his mob of idiotic supporters need to face this core truth: you built that.
@humanoid.panda:
Well, she’s been around way too long and accumulated too much debris. This whole email thing is an example of that. And she’s been in a bubble since 1992. I have no doubt she relates as well as I or anybody else does to other people. It’s just that most of the quotidian basically ended for her when Bill entered the White House.
She’s basically running as Obama II, even though Obama I ran against her Iraq war vote. And in the seven years since, all of Bill’s positions on welfare, crime and deregulation (not to mention gay marriage and probably NAFTA) have become the subject for some sort of apology or another. She’s basically somebody who is doing what the voters and public opinion want. A huge chunk of the country hates her because she’s a Clinton and a woman. But a smaller chunk doesn’t hate her but they don’t like her or really respect her, except in that way people respect celebrities who just are there.
And that’s what she is: a celebrity politician who is there, which makes her a terrible candidate. She’s fortunate she’s running against the GOP.
@humanoid.panda:
Also, let’s contemplate a Hillary Clinton presidency in 2008. I’m positive she would have followed Rahm’s advice to leave health care alone and focus on the economy. What would have happened would have been a bipartisan agreement, which would have ended up focusing on government spending and entitlements as the source of the crash. So no health care. Instead, working with Republicans and trying to be seen as a ‘leader’ in the eyes of idiots.
Best case scenario is that right now she’s still President, and we’re all talking like it’s 1994.
Worse case: President Romney’s (the guy who had as economic adviser the genius who wrote Dow 36,000 ) economic miracle has blown up the economy, this is Brownback’s Kansas, and it’s time to destroy to the last dollar now the entitlements that caused the crash.
Obama’s political move was to turn these mutants upon themselves. It’s quite possible that Obama managed to break the Republican party.
How is this going to hurt Trump with the primary voters?
This is just more wishful thinking from establishment Republicans.
The monster they have created isn’t going away and they have no idea how to “kill” it.
Having Fox News attack him, didn’t work, instead Fox News had to grovel at his feet.
Letting him speak freely, didn’t work.
But they have themselves to blame, it’s their monster.
@PJ:
Once you’ve paid the Drumpfgeld, you’re never free of The Donald.
@Modulo Myself:
Serious question: how does that make her any different then anyone else running right now? The only difference I can detect is what part of the general public’s opinion she’s following….. and most people elect someone to do what the voters tell them to so I’m not sure why you’re pulling that out as a negative. They want a biddable leader, not a trailblazer who ignores the populace.
But they’ll take Fiorina as The Boss? Few politicians are truly liked or respected yet they get elected time and time again. This canard keeps getting trotted out against Hillary all the time: she’s not likable, people don’t respect her, etc. It’s a subtle dig at her lack of “femininity”: females who aren’t appropriately demure get labeled in a way male colleges never have to worry about. In an election where the majority of candidates’ main characteristic is how deliberately offensive they are, it’s absolutely hilarious the unlikable charge get leveled at her. You don’t put a boss in place because you like them, you put them in place because they get s–t done. And Hillary, like Pelosi before her, gets s–t done regardless of whether or not people liked her. We already elected someone we’d like to have a beer with and look what happened. In the end, all the matters is how they handle their (and consequently our) business and nobody else comes even remotely close.
@Modulo Myself:
Wait a minute – NAFTA? That was signed on December 17, 1992, by then-president GHWB, but of course if it’s thought of as bad today, it will surely be blamed on Clinton.
I hope that’s what you meant.
@KM:
I’m not sure what the evidence is for Hillary Clinton being great at getting s–t done. Her two biggest things in public life–health care in Bill’s first term and the 2008 Democratic nomination–both ended badly. She’s competent, intelligent, and likable, sure. But I would have trouble explaining what she is exactly great at, except in choosing her enemies. I would also say that her celebrity cred–that she’s this inspiring person to look up to–is what makes her seem less than likable to those who are not the haters. Her problems are like Romney’s. If there’s a candid documentary showing their ‘real’ sides, they look good. If they’re in the center of the spectacle, not so much.
@Electroman:
Well, the law was passed by Congress under Clinton and he had Gore debate it with Perot on television in 1993, so he’s definitely one of those to blame for it.
@KM:
Oh yeah, the third biggest public moment for her was her support of the Iraq war.
@Modulo Myself:
Really?
How about this scenario: Hillary,who knows that Republicans are full of shit, puts pressure on Baucus to stop shadow-negotiating with Grassley already, something like the ACA comes to the floor while Kennedy is still alive, and the ACA not only passes, but Congress irons out some of its kinks. Then, Hillary uses Bill’s superior skills as communicator to somewhat limit the losses the Democrats suffer. After the defeat, she is tempted to do some kind of Great Bargain with the GOP , but her close advisor, Larry Sanders, who in the last several years spent his time railing against austerity, convinces her its a fool’s errand. She manages to break the GOP attempt to use debt ceiling as a weapon, and there is no sequester. She wins the election, with a slightly large majority than Obama on Earth 1.0.
Counterfactual scenarios in which one gets to set the parameters at will are fun!
@Modulo Myself:
You’ve describe Obama, to a T, just now (mutandis mutatis, of course).
Also, your last line is ridiculous. It’s like saying that Aaron Rodgers is a terrible soccer player, but he’s to play a game where he can use his hands. In a multi-party system, or a system where the GOP is a sober moderate party, sure, Hillary might not be a good fit. But we don’t live in that system, and it’s quite plausible that had we lived in one, she would be a totally different politician.
Larry Sanders= Lawrence Summers. LOL.
@Modulo Myself: “Well, she’s been around way too long and accumulated too much debris. ”
Or, she’s experienced and used to attack after attack after attack.
“This whole email thing is an example of that. ”
Yes, IOKIYAR.
“And she’s been in a bubble since 1992.”
Aside from having massive sh*t thrown at her, a successful Senate campaign, a presidential campaign, and some time as SoS, yes.
” I have no doubt she relates as well as I or anybody else does to other people. It’s just that most of the quotidian basically ended for her when Bill entered the White House.”
And most of the quotidian ended for Trump when he was born rich.
@Modulo Myself: “But a smaller chunk doesn’t hate her but they don’t like her or really respect her, except in that way people respect celebrities who just are there.”
You say a lot of stuff,….
@michael reynolds:
The question is what will happen when he starts going after the right’s sacred cows. I’m not just talking about departing from them on policy, as he already has, but saying stuff like “The reason Reagan did amnesty was because of his Alzheimer’s.” I have a hunch he’s going to come up with something along those lines pretty soon, and we’ll quickly learn whether his support is as airtight as has been claimed.
@Kylopod :
That would be fascinating to watch. If causing the mass disavowing of St Ronnie and all his associated mythology is the only thing good Trump does in this life, I may forgive him some of his asshattery. They’re on their way there anyway but to see the base officially trash Reagan for Trump would be a item checked off the bucket list. It would also serve as a perfect fault line for the Great Schism coming for the GOP like a freight train – are you Team Ronnie or Team Donald?
@gVOR08:
Yup. It’s a case of the spoiled rich brat thinking, “that N-word did it, so I’m gonna do it, too.”
@humanoid.panda:
Well, Hillary Clinton is a bit like Larry Sanders. She’s been playing her forever. This is the opposite of Obama, who was new, fresh, etc.
Overall she’s a bad candidate because outside of George Bush, there has not been a non-outsider elected as President since Reagan. Moreover, it’s apparent that she does not have the political skills to make this election about how necessary she is to the country. In fact, I think she’s at her weakest when she tries to position herself as somehow of the moment.
@Barry:
She’s had a ton of s–t thrown at her, yes, and most of it was unfair. But she’s not a victim. She’s a former Senator and Secretary of State and filthy rich.
THE PEOPLE HAVE LITTLE IDEA WHO RUNS AMERICA? AND ITS NOT THE PEOPLE. I THINK THE WHOLE MUSLIM QUESTION WAS A SETUP?
For the entertainment of the National Leftist Press, I think that man was planted to irritate Donald Trump with the question about Muslims. In truth why would somebody suddenly appear and push Trump with this aggravating question. It would never surprise me one bit if either the Career Republicans or Democrats are worried about there future scams on the American people that they will participate in? As I have said before they are desperate to find something to humiliate the new statesman? The businessman, who is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for president, has been strongly criticized by two of his Republican rivals, which doesn’t surprise me in the least.
The Special Interests cannot tempt him with money, so they are looking for a way, any way to get him out the race. They can throw anything they like at him; the national press and the political parties and it’s not going to make any difference to me, or anybody who wants a new America that is not beholden to the mega corporations and the wealthy donors.
Why should I reduce my interest for Donald Trump as President? A major reason to vote for the man and the thousands who attend his speaking performances, is the lobbyists working for the Special Interests have finally comprehended–they cannot buy his loyalty? So now “they are up the creek without a paddle”. So what’s left to them, ridicule perhaps, digging in his past for some sewer rhetoric. Well its just not working, so their scared and wondering where to turn?
Perhaps they can buy one of the candidates racing for their chance at White House? Who! Jeb Bush, as he has a huge fortune to use on dirty ads, or maybe looking for wedge issues that Trump doesn’t have a good answer for at the spur of the moment? Donald Trump has already unveiled his immigration policy piece on beginning with his first appearance. And all those people who have stood with him along side him are aware the needs of working people first — not illegal aliens or wealthy business owners. He has pledged to deport millions of undocumented immigrants, that the Leftists press and some in Congress have cautiously covered up the fact that the foreign aliens are taking the jobs of regular Americans.
Trump’s three principles of the plan include: “1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border. 2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced. 3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.”
Until Mexico pays for the wall, the United States would, “among other things,” “impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options],” the plan reads.
The plan calls for the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to triple, along with nationwide e-verify, the “mandatory return of all criminal aliens,” “detention-not catch-and-release,” defunding sanctuary cities, enhancing penalties for staying past temporary visas, cooperating with local task forces taking on gangs and ending birthright citizenship.
“The influx of foreign workers holds down salaries, keeps unemployment high, and makes it difficult for poor and working class Americans – including immigrants themselves and their children – to earn a middle class wage. Nearly half of all immigrants and their US-born children currently live in or near poverty, including more than 60 percent of Hispanic immigrants,” the plan reads.
Trump gave more avid description about his immigration proposal during a Sunday appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“We have to keep the families together,” he said of the people in the country illegally, “but they have to go.”
Additionally, Trump’s other suggestion includes increasing the prevailing wage for H-1B visas, requiring businesses to hire American workers first, ending welfare abuse, creating a jobs program for inner-city youth, creating a “refugee program for American children” without parents and pausing the hiring process before any foreign workers receive green cards so that employers “will have to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed immigrant and native workers.”
To President Trump not everybody is going to leave under these programs? The suggestion is to drive the illegal immigrants out, with a violation of the Rule of Law; for both unlawful workers and the business people that hire them, that amendment to the E-Verify law, so that its a MANDATORY operation, will give agents of ICE an enforcement tool to thoroughly search employers books using Social Security numbers for irregularities. It will mean no more optional opportunities specifically in high dense areas of minorities.
Major raids will be performed by ICE agents to seek out in any type of working place, where they have received information from a whistle blowers who will collect a reward. Eventually foreign aliens will leave of their own accord and people directly accountable for hiring non legal labor. If there is inefficient punishment for business owners, then nobody is going take any notice of the consequences?
1. For the first time offense Suspension of Business Licenses.
2. For second offense hefty fines and loss of business License.
3. For concealing illegal aliens working, more fines and a prison term.
Sen. Jeff Sessions an Alabama Republican is a illegal immigration hard-liner with whom Trump has consulted on the issue, praised it as “exactly the plan American needs.” Sessions, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s immigration subcommittee, said in a statement that “polling shows this plan will appeal broadly to all segments of the electorate: prioritizing the just demands of loyal, everyday Americans who have been shunned by a administration elitists.”
I think we are fooling ourselves about Trump’s chances of being elected. I believe that is it VERY likely he will get the nomination and will win. I will believe this right up until he is caught on an open mike calling his followers losers.
Three thoughts:
1) Obama’s a b ig boy. He can defend himself. Plus he has the entire executive branch of the government, the Democratic party, the mainstream media, and legions of lickspittles to defend his honor. Will the republic crumble if Donald Trump chooses to ignore one stupid slight to His Obamaness’ honor?
2) I recall a LOT of lies said and spread about Trump, Romney, Palin, Bush, and McCain, just to name a few. And I don’t recall a great deal of outrage from liberals about those lies. Hell, I’m still waiting for Harry Reid to pay some kind of price for his lies about Romney not paying taxes for years.
3) Why don’t we know a damned thing about the guy who asked the question? Why hasn’t he gotten the full Joe The Plumber treatment yet?
@Dave Francis: Dude, a lot of us have been pointing out that if you want to deal with illegal immigrants you need to deal with the demand on the US side first, hence E-verify.
It isn’t the guys on the left who have been holding mandatory E-verify up; it’s your love buddies on the right–all the Chamber of Commerce types. Donald himself has been found using illegal workers in his hotels. Do you REALLY think that anything with any actual effect is going to be passed? It’s going to be a pea-and-shell set of promises, like usual, and the Base will be led around by the nose as usual.
And I’d love to see the sort of tracking system that would have to be put into place to a) find all the illegals in the US b) identify the money transfers from them as opposed to everyone else, c) find a legal justification to just go ahead and confiscate the money involved. There’s something called the Fifth Amendment, you know. Or is your side willing to chuck that out of the window as well, just as you clowns are about every other bit of due process? Hope you like getting stopped on the roads and being forced to prove that you are a “true, blue, American” and not one of those nasty illegal furriners! Get used to carrying your passport or birth certificate with you at all times–oh, but I forgot, you guys are the ones who don’t believe in birth citizenship any more! Well, I guess in order to prove that you are, in fact, an American, you’re going to have to provide the birth certificates of your parents, grand-parents, and great-grandparents….what do you mean you don’t have the documentation? Well, then I guess you’re not an American, are you, but one of those horrible illegals, and oh by the way we’ll confiscate all your property before you leave to pay for all those benefits you’ve gathered so far….
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Obama does not have to “defend” himself from this sort of rank ignorance, and none of us feels the need to defend him.
It’s really about what this says about “conservatives”, the GOP, and Republican candidates. And what is says is both disturbing and ugly. You should be right at home in that space.
@Modulo Myself:
So, since Reagan, we had 4 presidential elections leading to new presidents:
1988: Vice President, son of prominent senator, wins
1992: Outsider wins
2000: Vice president, son of prominent senator wins the popular vote, and son of president, grandson of prominent senator, wins the electoral college.
2008 outside wins.
To argue that one can see a pattern preferring outsiders here one needs to Morning Joe level stupid..
@anjin-san: As usual, you don’t answer the question: why is Trump obligated to defend Obama?
The same Obama who collaborated with the mainstream media to attack and humiliate Trump at the WHCD a few years ago, as I recall. There was an opportunity for Obama to take the high ground (hell, “don’t gang up and cheap shot a guy in a situation where he can’t hit back” barely qualifies as “middle ground”), and Obama went, as his is wont, for the cheap shot.
But that’s OK. I recall you spirited denunciations of Andrew Sullivan when he was accusing Sarah Palin of faking the maternity of her youngest son, and going after the New York Times when they fabricated an affair between McCain and a lobbyist. And people are still citing your attacks on Dan Rather and the fake Texas Air National Guard memos.
You and your integrity are an inspiration to all, regardless of our political leanings. We should all aspire to your moral standing.
@humanoid.panda: Taking it a bit further, and skipping incumbent president winning:
2008: Sitting Senator from the Chicago political machine beats “rogue” Senator.
2000: Son of former president defeats sitting vice-president.
1992: Sitting governor defeats sitting president.
1988: Sitting vice-president beats sitting governor.
1980: Former governor beats sitting president.
1976: Sitting governor defeats sitting president.
1968: former vice-president defeats sitting Senator.
1960: Sitting Senator defeats sitting vice-president.
1952: War hero defeats sitting Senator.
“Outsider” is a very vague term. W had no DC experience, while Obama was a sitting Senator, so it’s just as arguable that W was the “outsider” and Obama the “insider.” Especially when you factor in Gore and McCain, and their statuses.
Note: I’m not actually making those arguments, just pointing out how they are arguable.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Oh Jenos, are you still whining because Obama gave Trump the public humiliation he so richly deserved? Boo hoo. Obama wiped the floor with Trump with one hand. It’s truly a shame Obama can’t run again, because we could be enjoying watching him do it over and over and…
Trump took Obama on, and he found out what happens when a bully takes on a badass. It’s that simple.
As I’ve said about you before, you can tell a lot about a person by who they choose to champion. You seem to have a thing for sociopaths. Yuck.
It’s not about Trump defending Obama, it’s about Trump defending the truth…but, since Trump has already swam in Birther waters, he’s already used to promoting lies…
@Jenos Idanian #13:
He’s not. He’s obligated to admit public error. He made false statements in public about Obama’s religion and citizenship, so he has an obligation to correct that when it comes up. It would be the same if the question had been about vaccines causing autism, or whether his campaign is accepting outside money.
My memory must be going; I didn’t remember Sullivan, Rather, or the NYT running for president.
(Yet again, you equate the relevance and import of public statements by random non-Republicans with that of public statements by representatives, present or prospective, of the Republican Party. It doesn’t work that way. When a Republican Senator on the Science committee says that global warming is a fraud, that is not precisely balanced by Penn Gillette saying that religion is a fraud.)
Dave Francis:
If so, the next question is: why did Trump take the bait? Suppose a plainclothes cop tricked me into buying what I thought were drugs. I couldn’t plausibly claim afterward that I’m actually a non-user 100% of the time and would never dream of buying drugs “for real”. There’s such a thing as a “secret test of character”, and under some circumstances the findings of such a test can be valid.
I acknowledge the small possibility that this was a setup. If so, it was “unfair” in the sense that it backed Trump into a corner — he couldn’t denounce the paranoid xenophobia without losing at least some of his base. But he deliberately attracted that base in the first place. Once you pay the dogsgeld, you wake up with fleas…
@An Interested Party:
It’s not about defending McCain, it’s about defending the truth.
It’s not about defending Palin, it’s about defending the truth.
It’s not about defending Bush, it’s about defending the truth.
It’s not about defending Trump, it’s about defending the truth.
It’s not about defending Zimmerman, it’s about defending the truth.
…
Pull the other one, IP. It plays music.
I repeat: Trump has no obligation to spend any of his time defending Obama. And considering how Obama has treated others in the past, including Trump, Trump would be wasting his limited time in doing so.
Plus, it would be depriving you folks of your chance to express just how RIGHTEOUSLY OUTRAGED and APPALLED and DISGUSTED you are with Trump not joining you in giving Obama the fluffing he so deserves.
Jenos, Obama finally mocked Trump after Trump denigrated him for weeks. You’re acting like Trump was some sort of innocent who was attacked by Obama out of the blue. Furthermore, Obama did his mocking in a venue in which public figures know they’re going to take some ribbing. The fact that Trump couldn’t laugh at himself shows just how thin his skin is. He can dish it out but not take it.
@Monala:
Really, this is what you’re going with?
I’m not at all outraged by the way. I am, in fact, quite happy that Trump handled it exactly how he did. Now, if he is the eventual nominee there will be this clip to go along with all his birther nonsense, his insults against Mexicans etc, to show all moderates exactly what kind of crazy he is and what kind of crazy he attracts. He is doing a favor to whoever the eventual Dem nominee is by bringing all the crazy to the fore. Viva la Trump!
Nice to see you using the defense that 10-year-olds use: “But Mommy, look what Johnny did!”
As opposed to the fluffing you give/gave Trump, Romney, and Bush, not to mention the full body massage, fluffing, and oral sex you gave George Zimmerman…
@Grewgills:
Oops, wrong reply to
@Dave Francis: Why do you think Trump can’t be reached by money? He’s spent his life pursuing it. There’s no person running for the Presidency (on the Republican side) who’s spent more time thinking about building up his personal fortune than Trump.
Anyway, Washington doesn’t revolve around money, it revolves around power. Trump is a guy who needs to be flattered. He needs it so bad, to have everyone saying that he’s got a hot wife and a lot of money. I’ve never needed anything as badly as Trump needs attention. That makes him an easier mark than most politicians. He has no principles that he’s fought his whole life defending.
If you want to know who Trump is, look at Candidate McCain. He could always get press coverage by bashing Republicans, so he kept doing it, and got so much media attention that he picked up the nomination. Then the press turned on him – ratings are nice, but only when people are bashing Republicans. The moment it was McCain versus the kind of person a journalist would vote for, the press turned on him. And McCain was willing to say anything he could think of to get them back.
@Pinky: Great comment, Pinky. That really sums up Trump.
Ahh yes, the tired meme about the “liberal” media gets trotted out again…it’s a wonder that Republicans can even get elected, what with the vast array of forces working against them…
@An Interested Party:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/just-7-percent-of-journalists-are-republicans-thats-far-less-than-even-a-decade-ago/
@Pinky: OMG! 28% of ALL (not just political) reporters are Democrats! This is a national scandal! Congress should investigate…
Hardly a surprise. Journalism has a relationship with facts. Republicans these days don’t.
@An Interested Party: I’m not saying 28% is a national scandal. I will say it’s four times 7%, and that does support the liberal media “meme”.
Not really, as the overwhelming majority of reporters are listed as independent…28% is hardly a “liberal media”…Republicans/conservatives should worry more about having sensible and reasonable policies rather than blaming their troubles on the alleged “liberal media”…
“The storied liberalism of America’s rank-and-file newspaper workers held strong over the last eight years, while conservatism crumbled. In 1996 only 15 percent of the newsroom labeled itself conservative/Republican or leaning in that direction, down from 22 percent in 1988. The greatest gain is in the ”independent” column, which rose from 17 percent to 24 percent. Liberal/Democrats and those leaning that way slipped only from 62 to 61 percent.”
http://files.asne.org/kiosk/reports/97reports/journalists90s/journalists.html
I didn’t realize the “workers” were in charge. They’re not, so now you should tell us about the owners.
@jukeboxgrad: The owners aren’t in charge of the day to day operations of a newsroom. They hire the staff, who by and large come from journalism schools. But look, I can keep putting up studies that show liberal bias in the press, and examples of it, and admissions of it, and you guys can keep nitpicking them, or you could just concede the point. It’d make you look more earnest.
@jukeboxgrad: Ack. Just lost my reply to the spam filter. Don’t know why. This is a silly argument anyway, given the number of studies, examples, and admissions of liberal bias. Just concede it already.
@Pinky: That report is almost 20 years old…perhaps you could find something more current…also, you really need to make up your mind which piece of information you want to use, as this latest piece seems to contradict the earlier piece you linked to…
The owners call the shots, just like in every other business.
I guess you never heard of Judith Miller.
By the way, the so-called “studies” are a joke. Orin Kerr is not a liberal. Take a look at what he said. Find my comments on that page, and then find my name on this page.
That is, if you want to look at the issue in a serious way. But of course I realize that you don’t.