2016 USA Presidential Elections

Of course, that's why you won't understand Trump now, because you refuse to look at other Trumps happened elsewhere. Are you sure you aren't just looking at your belly-button, by any chance?
The irony, of course, is that you're a socialist who refuses to look at how disastrously socialism has ended in the past ;)


Anyways, I don't much care for personal bickering so onward we go:

Yes, Trump will have broad power to crack down on immigration

So how big will Donald Trump's wall really be?

The wall along the southwest border with Mexico was one of the president-elect's signature campaign promises, as he railed against illegal immigration and vowed to seal the borders against criminals, terrorists and millions of people trying to enter the United States legally. Now, immigration experts are trying to figure out exactly how those policies will work in a Trump administration.

And so far, it looks like he will be able to follow through on many of his pledges ? with or without help from Congress.

"Generally speaking, any president has wide discretion when it comes to enforcing our immigration laws because immigration touches on national sovereignty," said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor at Cornell Law School and author of a 21-volume treatise, Immigration Law and Procedure.

MORE DEPORTATIONS

The first, and possibly easiest, change Trump can make is redirecting the Department of Homeland Security to ramp up deportations. At the beginning of the campaign, Trump said all 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country must go. In the closing months, he talked more about deporting immigrants with criminal records ? "bad hombres" ? and opened the possibility of finding a way for some to remain in the country.

In an interview that aired Sunday on CBS' 60 Minutes, Trump said he plans to immediately deport 2 million to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Trump said he would emphasize criminals before deciding about law-abiding families legally in the country.

Trump would need congressional approval to hire more Border Patrol agents to monitor the frontier and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to round up immigrants living in the interior of the country. Trump doesn't need any new money to change the focus of the immigration agents who are already in place, said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an immigrant advocacy group.

"If the Department of Homeland Security secretary greenlights, simply in tone, the ramping up of enforcement actions, that is a system that can wreak havoc very, very quickly," Noorani said.

ENDING DEPORTATION PROTECTIONS

Trump could unilaterally revoke the deportation protections President Obama created under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA. More than 840,000 young undocumented immigrants have been approved for that program, which protects them from deportation for two-year periods and grants them work permits.

Stephen Legomsky, professor emeritus at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis and a former chief counsel at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said Trump could revoke every single DACA case very simply. The program was created by an executive memorandum by Obama's secretary of Homeland Security, and President-elect Trump's secretary could simply rescind that memo or issue a new one.

It would be more complicated to revoke their work permits. Under U.S. law, Homeland Security must provide written notice that it plans to revoke the permits and recipients have 15 days to respond ? but don't have a right to a court hearing to fight the revocation.

Legomsky questioned whether Trump would then move to deport all those DACA recipients. Since Trump won't be able to quickly deport all of the nation's undocumented immigrants, Legomsky said DACA recipients are the least likely targets since they have clean criminal records, they've been working or going to school and they've already been vetted by the federal government.

"As a practical matter, it seems like these folks would be the lowest priority of all," he said.

ENDING REFUGEE PROGRAMS

A president has very broad, unilateral discretion to determine which refugees ? those fleeing war and other threats to their safety ? are admitted into the country.

The number of refugees accepted by the U.S. each year is set exclusively by the president. President Obama has increased the number of refugees from 70,000 in 2015 to 110,000 in 2017. Trump repeatedly bashed that decision, saying refugees from countries like Syria were threats to national security because they had not been properly vetted and could include terrorists. The State Department says Syrian refugees undergo the strictest background checks.

As president, Trump could drop the total number of refugees to zero.

"Congress can ask questions and object to things, but ultimately it's up to the president," Legomsky said.

THE MUSLIM BAN

Presidents have the power to bar access to the U.S. to specific immigrants or entire classes of immigrants. That power is laid out in the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows a president to block would-be immigrants if they are deemed "detrimental to the interests of the United States."

Yale-Loehr said that provision has been used sporadically over the decades to bar dictators, military strongmen and others who worked to undermine democracy in countries like North Korea, Venezuela, South Sudan and Libya. But he said it?s never been used in the way or the extent proposed by Trump, who had initially called for a temporary ban on all immigrants from all Muslim countries.

Such a proposal would have likely faced a slew of lawsuits from groups claiming it violates First Amendment protections for freedom of religion. In recent months, Trump altered the description of his ban, saying he would target immigrants from ?terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur.?

Legomsky said if Trump worded such a proclamation based on terrorism grounds and not on religious grounds, "then I'm sure that order would hold up in court."

THE BORDER WALL

Extending the 650 miles of wall or fencing that currently exist would require congressional approval because of the billions of dollars that the project would cost. Trump told 60 Minutes that in "certain areas, a wall is more appropriate," but "there could be some fencing."

Congress may need to create a legal mechanism to withhold remittances that Mexicans in the U.S. send back to their families in Mexico, a revenue stream that Trump says would help pay for construction of the wall.

So far, it looks like there's interest on Capitol Hill. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on Wednesday that border security "is something I think ought to be high on the list." And House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said Trump has earned a "mandate" to implement his policy.

But Tuesday's election left Republicans short of the 60-vote majority in the Senate that would allow them to override a Democratic filibuster that could block legislation, meaning Republicans may need to craft a compromise to get the wall extended.

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., one of the lead immigration negotiators in the House, said he would be willing to accept extensions to the border wall as long as part of the package includes legal protections for undocumented immigrants who remain in the U.S.

"The size of a wall, the thickness of a wall, the size of a fence ? whatever it takes to finally secure the border ? I think Congress will have the willingness to do that," Diaz-Balart said. "But in order to do all of that, you're going to have to get it through the Senate. The mathematical reality of that is you're going to have to deal with the (undocumented immigrants) who are here."
 
The irony, of course, is that you're a socialist who refuses to look at how disastrously socialism has ended in the past ;)

Even if that was true, which it isn't, it would still be a logical phallacy. The name's Ad hominem.

You're trying to flee from reality. Pretty much like the SJWs you despise.
 
2016 USA Presidential Elections

What currently angers me most (and what I had predicted long before here on FG) ist how naive the media and the intellectuals were before the election, how much they underestimated the frustration and fury of the white middle class.

And the feminists got their butts kicked big time as well. 53 % of white women voted for Trump, 63 % even, if you leave away those who graduated. That's a hard slap in the face for all the intellectual fighters against sexism.

The problem is not Trump, the problem is an intellectual society that completely underestimated the appeal of such a guy and considered him a joke right till the end.

If you ever wondered how most of the German intellectual elite felt in 1933, now you know it.

In this context it's actually very reassuring that Trump doesn't seem to have a plan at all and hasn't written a book about what he'd do if he came to power.
 
Last edited:
Trump is neither a Democrat nor a Conservative, he is a narcissistic egomaniac who would say and do whatever it takes to be successful, accepted, loved and held in high consideration.

No, not really. He's smart enough to realize that it's impossible for the reform party to win an election.

I think he knew full well the amount of bullshit he was spewing out during the campaign, catering to the repressed angry feelings of the mob, not a real plan for his actual presidency.

Trump doesn't think in terms of political parties. If what he needs to get successful was to praise the great pumpkin, he would.

That's the point - he believes that HE can make America great again, not that any particular party can. He had to run as dem or rep in order to have a shot but other than that he doesn't follow party lines.

He doesn't follow any lines. He wants to be praised, if that means to make America Great Again, so be it. But that's not the priority. If he had to choose between himself and America, he would choose himself. Every single time. If that meant America isn't to be great again, so be it.

Yeah, he gave up the billionaire lifestyle and chose to be mocked and ridiculed worldwide because "he wants to be praised".

There's a very interesting hypothesis I've seen crop up in some places, that fits with some reports that he didn't realize how involved the presidency is, or all the appointments he has to make, or how he wants to spend a lot of time at Trump Tower instead of moving into the White House full stop:

He didn't want to be president, the hypothesis goes, he just wanted to make it a close race and then sit in a figurative peanut gallery, cultivating a loyal and paying following by criticizing Hillary and pointing out how he would have done it better. He'd spin off the election loss into a TV network or media empire to add to his businesses, asking his followers to subscribe to keep up to date with how America could have been made great again if only he had been elected. He'd siphon some audience away from Fox News, which is the only national conservative TV network, and get the rest from the alt-right that just hangs around the internet and disdains Fox News as the establishment. In short, he was treating the campaign as a branding exercise first and foremost, and if he happened to win the presidency all the better for him, right?

On top of the garden variety ego-feeding and another income stream, such a media business would have put him back on national TV as an authority figure of sorts, which hasn't been the case since The Apprentice was cancelled, but also shielding him from too much of the same criticism he would lob at Hillary since he could just say his policies would work without having to prove it like the President has to. He said on the campaign trail he knows more about defeating ISIS than the generals tasked with doing it? On a TV show he can pretend for his audience that's the case and not really piss anyone off since the only ones watching are his followers; as Commander-in-Chief, he now has to prove it or drop the act, and there will be people pissed off at him either way.

The alternative is that he honestly believed it would be easy to go into the Oval Office and fix America, and he's now getting a dose of reality.
 
Or about his struggle either. :p
 
What currently angers me most (and what I had predicted long before here on FG) ist how naive the media and the intellectuals were before the election, how much they underestimated the frustration and fury of the white middle class.
TIL: white middle class does not include intellectuals.

I understand what you're getting at but in place of the word "intellectual" I would use "progressive ideologue". Those are the leftist SJWs, mostly along the coasts, that have no clue how most people in this country live. They are also completely ignorant of US history, law, etc.
 
59899b60a03a4effa447193b2fdac193_zpsviodorwo.jpg
 
TIL: white middle class does not include intellectuals.

I understand what you're getting at but in place of the word "intellectual" I would use "progressive ideologue". Those are the leftist SJWs, mostly along the coasts, that have no clue how most people in this country live. They are also completely ignorant of US history, law, etc.

Don't be such a tool, you know that these issues exist regardless of political leanings and background. This is a problem of education, something that has been atrocious for A LONG TIME in this country.
 
Looks like Trump is not only the first ever candidate to wave the rainbow flag on stage but also the first ever president to support gay marriage right from the start.

Because it's popular with voters, already legal in many places so a complete pain to repeal (if he even has the power to do that), etc. Why aren't you trying to pass Trump as a progressive? You know he ain't
 
Because it's popular with voters, already legal in many places so a complete pain to repeal (if he even has the power to do that), etc. Why aren't you trying to pass Trump as a progressive? You know he ain't

I think it's more about combating the standard tactic of the left to smear everyone on the right as racist, misogynist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc.
 
I think it's more about combating the standard tactic of the left to smear everyone on the right as racist, misogynist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc.

A lot of people also think that if are one of these, you are all of them. It`s a very simplistic view of the world. You are either "good" or "evil". That's not a viewpoint exclusive to "the left", it's the POV of ignorance.
Of course that's bullshit and you can be a total racist and not a homophobe. Or be racist and gay. Or be a misogynist and love all those dark colored males. Or you can be a little bit of everything or nothing. The world in reality is not black and white but all types of shades and color.

I am still not buying that Trump will be champion of LGBT rights - or working class people - or even white men. I think he is a very dishonest person and does not really stand for anything. But for that we will have to wait and see. He is getting the chance to prove me (and lots of other people) wrong. I would have rather the american people would not have taken that "chance", but hey. Believe it or not - I'd rather be proven wrong than gaining the right to go "I told you so" down the line.
 
Last edited:
Because it's popular with voters, already legal in many places so a complete pain to repeal (if he even has the power to do that), etc. Why aren't you trying to pass Trump as a progressive? You know he ain't
It's legal nationwide actually. And yes, Trump is quite progressive among Republicans. Everyone is complaining that Trump is all these horrible things and he hates everyone (blacks, gays, women, Muslims, Jews, immigrants, mexicans, puppies, kittens, macaroni, etc) and it's all utter crap.
 
And yes, Trump is quite progressive among Republicans. Everyone is complaining that Trump is all these horrible things and he hates everyone (blacks, gays, women, Muslims, Jews, immigrants, mexicans, puppies, kittens, macaroni, etc) and it's all utter crap.

The KKK announced that they will hold a parade in honor of Trump in North Carolina. Trump appointed Breitbart's Stephen Bannon, who has been an advocate of the alt-right and has been open about his hatred toward immigrants, gays, and Muslims.

So it's not that just the "left" is seeing these things in Trump, the "right" is too. The difference is they are applauding it. Maybe Trump doesn't hate all these groups, but the fact is that people from both sides of the political spectrum perceive him as such a figure, allowing them to channel their views (some of which are full of hate), which only deepens the political divide.
 
If NAMBLA supported YOU, would that automatically make you a pedophile? Trump is pro-gun and wants to build a border wall - fucking of course white supremacists are going to hurr durr about it; just like Democrats, they are completely misinterpreting the message and both assume that Trump is the new Hitler and wants to kill the -insert group name here-. It's both sad and hilarious, for example, that the left is appalled that Trump might be an anti-semite and the racists are cheering that he might be an anti-semite, both conveniently ignoring the fact that his family is full of Jews. It's stupid when Lena Dunham does it, it's stupid when you do it, and it's stupid when David Duke (who no one knew about until Clinton's SJW army brought him to fame) does it. You're all in for a rude awakening when Trump doesn't set up concentration camps.
 
If NAMBLA supported YOU, would that automatically make you a pedophile? Trump is pro-gun and wants to build a border wall - fucking of course white supremacists are going to hurr durr about it; just like Democrats, they are completely misinterpreting the message and both assume that Trump is the new Hitler and wants to kill the -insert group name here-. It's both sad and hilarious, for example, that the left is appalled that Trump might be an anti-semite and the racists are cheering that he might be an anti-semite, both conveniently ignoring the fact that his family is full of Jews. It's stupid when Lena Dunham does it, it's stupid when you do it, and it's stupid when David Duke (who no one knew about until Clinton's SJW army brought him to fame) does it. You're all in for a rude awakening when Trump doesn't set up concentration camps.

So you are basically agreeing with my previous post, but in doing so you are still choosing to act like a dick. For the record, I never compared Trump to Hitler. I always preferred the Andrew Jackson comparison. And as Mally pointed out, Clinton and her camp didn't bring fame to David Duke, the world has known about him for a long time. But these small details from history don't matter, right? As long as you can ride your high horse and act like a dick to the rest of us here.

It's stupid when Lena Dunham does it, it's stupid when you do it, and it's stupid when David Duke (who no one knew about until Clinton's SJW army brought him to fame) does it. You're all in for a rude awakening when Trump doesn't set up concentration camps.

We are sorry, oh you supreme human being, who has foresight and intelligence better than everyone else. Of all people, you alone really understand Trump, and everyone else is misguided.
 
Naw, David Duke has been known for decades. Even Ice Cube wrote something about him back in '92.
Agree. Even north of the border I knew about David Duke back during the original 90s news stories. Keep digging that hole, Level.
 
Naw, David Duke has been known for decades. Even Ice Cube wrote something about him back in '92.
I was 4 years old at the time so I'm sure I'm not the only one that went "David who?" last year.


We are sorry, oh you supreme human being, who has foresight and intelligence better than everyone else. Of all people, you alone really understand Trump, and everyone else is misguided.
I vote this as my new title.

It's amusing how hard the left is pushing the xenophobia angle when there's hardly any evidence of it. You can make a strong Trump vs women argument but aside from that you've got nothing.
 
Hard? lol Trump pushes that angle himself, he surrounds himself with assholes that have no business running the country and he never denounces the spats of racism that has occurred since the election. In that sense he is giving validation to the ideals of his racist supporters. Trump will be a disaster and I give it until the first terrorist attack under his presidency to mark the point where it all goes down hill very quickly.
 
Top