Very simply, why I cannot stand Donald Trump

[Nosmo King]

Did the OP really imagine anyone cared why he can't stand the President?

No more than anyone has justified their blind, unthinking love for the current president.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Did the OP really imagine anyone cared why he can't stand the President?

I suppose the answer to your question is obvious, since your post is #397.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

They have no such right to a hearing under US law

 

[Unkotare]

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?

They have no such right to a hearing under US law

Sure they do.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

They have no such right to a hearing under US law

Bullshit. Read the Bill of Rights.

 

[candycorn]

Is that what the doctors at Fox News told you?

Look up the term and you'll understand why your post is a perfect example of the phrase.

Do you regard the majority of Americans as mentally disturbed because you do not agree with them politically?

Almost all leaders or organizations, public and private, do not present as polite ass kissers.
They present as the source of accomplishment...or they toss you out the door.
Any adult who cannot accept this fact is mentally disturbed.

Mother Theresa, the Pope, and most other heads of nations manage to lead organizations without insinuating a woman is on her period, calling their political opponents childish names, calls any negative coverage “fake news”, and lie everytime they open their mouths.

Do they run restaurants?
Banks?
Construction companies?
Police Departments?

Are you fucking kidding me?

Okay….

Banks? I do not remember counting Paul Volker or Alan Greenspan as some sort of “ass kisser”; they ran the largest banks in the world.

Heads of states are the de facto heads of the federal police departments.

Restaurants? I suppose you get a mix but usually politeness is looked upon more favorably than being some badass.

Apparently, judging from the humor in your post, it is you who is kidding us. you sound mentally disturbed.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

They have no such right to a hearing under US law

Bullshit. Read the Bill of Rights.

They have no rights , we kick them out all the time with no hearing

 

[candycorn]

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?

They have no such right to a hearing under US law

If you were stopped by the police, could you prove you are a US Citizen on the spot?

If so, how?

If you could not prove it on the spot (as most Americans could not), should they get a hearing to furnish such proof?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Two Supreme Court appointments and no Hillary was worth my vote.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

They have no such right to a hearing under US law

If you were stopped by the police, could you prove you are a US Citizen on the spot?

If so, how?

If you could not prove it on the spot (as most Americans could not), should they get a hearing to furnish such proof?

You guys live in an alternative reality

What constitutional rights do undocumented immigrants have?


How it works in practice: Immigrants have the right to due process. But in reality, says, Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, "courts of law run the gamut."

In some cases, immigrants are not granted a hearing at all. When asked about the president's tweet, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders pointed to the process of "expedited removal," which was created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

"Just because you don't see a judge doesn't mean you aren't receiving due process," Sanders said.

Under the expedited removal process, immigrants who have been in the country illegally for less than two years and are apprehended within 100 miles of the border can be deported almost immediately without going through a court hearing.

 

[Dale Smith]

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?

They have no such right to a hearing under US law

Bullshit. Read the Bill of Rights.

Crossing over the border and squatting doesn't entitle anyone to anything but a kick in the ass back over the border. It stuns me that wetbacks are protesting and screaming about "rights" that they don't have.

 

[candycorn]

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?

They have no such right to a hearing under US law

If you were stopped by the police, could you prove you are a US Citizen on the spot?

If so, how?

If you could not prove it on the spot (as most Americans could not), should they get a hearing to furnish such proof?

You guys live in an alternative reality

What constitutional rights do undocumented immigrants have?


How it works in practice: Immigrants have the right to due process. But in reality, says, Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, "courts of law run the gamut."

In some cases, immigrants are not granted a hearing at all. When asked about the president's tweet, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders pointed to the process of "expedited removal," which was created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

"Just because you don't see a judge doesn't mean you aren't receiving due process," Sanders said.

Under the expedited removal process, immigrants who have been in the country illegally for less than two years and are apprehended within 100 miles of the border can be deported almost immediately without going through a court hearing.

Again, how do you prove they are here illegally? They do have the presumption of innocence; do they not?

Much less, how do you know they haven’t been here less than 2 years?

But getting back to what we should be worried about…

If asked to prove your US Citizenship by the police, how would you do it?
If you couldn’t…wouldn’t you want a hearing to prove it?

 

[OKTexas]

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?

They have no such right to a hearing under US law

If you were stopped by the police, could you prove you are a US Citizen on the spot?

If so, how?

If you could not prove it on the spot (as most Americans could not), should they get a hearing to furnish such proof?

My CHL proves I'm a citizen, they do background checks and everything.


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

They have no such right to a hearing under US law

If you were stopped by the police, could you prove you are a US Citizen on the spot?

If so, how?

If you could not prove it on the spot (as most Americans could not), should they get a hearing to furnish such proof?

You guys live in an alternative reality

What constitutional rights do undocumented immigrants have?


How it works in practice: Immigrants have the right to due process. But in reality, says, Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, "courts of law run the gamut."

In some cases, immigrants are not granted a hearing at all. When asked about the president's tweet, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders pointed to the process of "expedited removal," which was created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

"Just because you don't see a judge doesn't mean you aren't receiving due process," Sanders said.

Under the expedited removal process, immigrants who have been in the country illegally for less than two years and are apprehended within 100 miles of the border can be deported almost immediately without going through a court hearing.

Again, how do you prove they are here illegally? They do have the presumption of innocence; do they not?

Much less, how do you know they haven’t been here less than 2 years?

But getting back to what we should be worried about…

If asked to prove your US Citizenship by the police, how would you do it?
If you couldn’t…wouldn’t you want a hearing to prove it?

They just take me to the cop shop run my finger prints and they will know I am a US citizen, because I have a police record



Isn't technology wonderful

 

[Issa]

Trump followers are like those who glorify the likes of Pablo Escobar, el Chapo and Al Capone...same reasoning:
They dont care if he a crook.
They won't care about his bullying and insults.
They dont care about him dodging the draft.
They dont care about him harassing women.
They dont care about any moral values.
They claim that they voted for policies and the economy is doing well...like we were in recession and now we are not because of him.

TRUMP simply appeals to his base, that we already knew all along were dumb, have prejudice against other minorities and are insecure and worried that they gonna lose their status quo as a privileged race.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How anyone continues to support Trump and defend him is inexplicable.

Because he is doing a great job. It is indeed sad that you find our President doing a great job a bad thing for America.

indeed he is

and to think we get a bonus SC pick

twofer so far

--LOL

If the conservatives stack the deck, and begin to dismantle civil rights; continue with split decisions which are anti democratic (such as the two CU decisions); continue privatization of traditionally public functions; and continue to support an Authoritarian Executive, the people will learn an Oligarchy of Plutocrats is not the utopia the R's claim.

can you stop being a quack for even one minute

the republicans are not going to "dismantle" civil rights ya retard

the democrats fought tooth and nail to prevent civil rights for years --LOL

and still do to this day

the democrats supporting limiting the 1st amendment the 2nd amendment the 5th amendment for starters

You're either insane or a damn liar.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Trump followers are like those who glorify the likes of Pablo Escobar, el Chapo and Al Capone...same reasoning:
They dont care if he a crook.
They won't care about his bullying and insults.
They dont care about him dodging the draft.
They dont care about him harassing women.
They dont care about any moral values.
They claim that they voted for policies and the economy is doing well...like we were in recession and now we are not because of him.

TRUMP simply appeals to his base, that we already knew all along were dumb, have prejudice against other minorities and are insecure and worried that they gonna lose their status quo as a privileged race.

TRUMP simply appeals to his base, that we already knew all along were dumb, have prejudice against other minorities and are insecure and worried that they gonna lose their status quo as a privileged race.


That's just retarded and racist ..

 

[Issa]

Trump followers are like those who glorify the likes of Pablo Escobar, el Chapo and Al Capone...same reasoning:
They dont care if he a crook.
They won't care about his bullying and insults.
They dont care about him dodging the draft.
They dont care about him harassing women.
They dont care about any moral values.
They claim that they voted for policies and the economy is doing well...like we were in recession and now we are not because of him.

TRUMP simply appeals to his base, that we already knew all along were dumb, have prejudice against other minorities and are insecure and worried that they gonna lose their status quo as a privileged race.

TRUMP simply appeals to his base, that we already knew all along were dumb, have prejudice against other minorities and are insecure and worried that they gonna lose their status quo as a privileged race.


That's just retarded and racist ..

Is the truth...I'm yet to meet a trump who is not racist or bigot. This very forum is a good example.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Trump followers are like those who glorify the likes of Pablo Escobar, el Chapo and Al Capone...same reasoning:
They dont care if he a crook.
They won't care about his bullying and insults.
They dont care about him dodging the draft.
They dont care about him harassing women.
They dont care about any moral values.
They claim that they voted for policies and the economy is doing well...like we were in recession and now we are not because of him.

TRUMP simply appeals to his base, that we already knew all along were dumb, have prejudice against other minorities and are insecure and worried that they gonna lose their status quo as a privileged race.

TRUMP simply appeals to his base, that we already knew all along were dumb, have prejudice against other minorities and are insecure and worried that they gonna lose their status quo as a privileged race.


That's just retarded and racist ..

Is the truth...I'm yet to meet a trump who is not racist or bigot. This very forum is a good example.

No you're the one posting like a racist now, you really think this is about race? What the fuck do we care...

 

[Oldstyle]

Candycorn seems to think that another tax cut targeting the Middle Class is "funny". I wonder how funny she'll think it is when blue collar Democrats vote Republican again this mid term?

Should be interesting to see the election results. I’m out of the electoral predictions business….lol.

But since you brought it up….
We’re 20T in debt. Do you think cutting taxes as we are not cutting spending is responsible? 24 months ago, you did not.

I'm in favor of cutting taxes and I'm also in favor of cutting spending. That opinion hasn't changed in the past twenty YEARS let alone the past two!

So is it responsible to do one and not the other…as the blob has done once already?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Why do I think I’ll get some reference to someone who is no longer president, is not president or some other rationalization….

If you answer at all. I doubt you will.

No it is not. My biggest disappointment with Donald Trump so far is that I thought he might be the first President to hold government's feet to the fire on spending and he hasn't. I'm hoping that changes as he moves along in his first term.