The DON

Kevin,

How about

"Mexican immigrants are rapists, thieves, and drug dealers".

And then he added something to the effect that he assumed there were some "good" Mexicans.

If you don't want to call that a "gross generalization", please tell me how you would describe that phrase.

From a personal perspective, my town has many Mexicans that provide a much needed labor force to support the services in the Jackson Hole valley and there have been, to the best of my knowledge, no incidents (in the past 30 years plus that I have lived here) that substantiate that claim.

They are very hard working, contributing members of this community.

Gordon

Here's more information about the Bernie Sanders article he wrote in the 70's that Kevin mentioned.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...e-bernie-sanders-rape-fantasy-essay-explained

This link shows an interesting rating system for some of Donald Trumps statements.

Mostly True
Half True
Mostly False
False
Pants on Fire

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/

Gordon, when Trump was talking about the immigration of Mexicans, his conversation was centered around those coming across the border illegally. So when he said, "Mexican immigrants are rapists, thieves, and drug dealers", he was referring to the illegals. I agree with you, many are just people looking for a better place to raise a family. I work in insurance, and in an office of seven, we have 3 Hispanic girls who are the some of the better employees we have ever had, and we created another company to advertise specifically to the Hispanic community. The majority of them are our best customers in terms of being polite and considerate customers, but whether or not most of them came here legally or illegally, I don't know.

But there is another side that you may not see in Jackson, Wyoming and I may not see in the rich suburbs of DC. Look at any state in the South West, or those cities that are 'Sanctuary cities' and look at the crime reports, and you'll see a pattern. Here is a link to the LA police department online site, and this is who they are showing as the most wanted criminals today, I just went under it to give you the link. Look at the list of people and names, and then tell me that Trump might not be on to something. http://www.lapdonline.org/all_most_wanted

As I have said, I don't agree with his style and choice of words, but his message isn't far off in my opinion. We need to start looking at who is entering our country, but the democrats seem to have no desire to do so, because they see them as future votes.

Kevin said:

As I have said, I don't agree with his style and choice of words, but his message isn't far off in my opinion. We need to start looking at who is entering our country, but the democrats seem to have no desire to do so, because they see them as future votes.

Click to expand...

Sorry Kevin, but that is just a typical right wing lie. Who has deported more illegals back to Mexico, Bush or Obama? As a democrat, I don't look at illegals as being future democratic votes. Yes, we have a serious illegal problem in this country, but to blame democrats is an out and out lie.

slowGEEZR said:

Who has deported more illegals back to Mexico, Bush or Obama?

Click to expand...

That's actually a hard question to answer.

Obama has "deported" more illegal immigrants than Bush did. This means there is paperwork on them and it is considered a felony if they try to come back across the border.
Bush "deported" a smaller number.

Bush "returned" a higher volume of illegal immigrants, however there are no fingerprints or documentation when they are returned so the same person can make many attempts and be counted as returned multiple times.
Obama "returned" a smaller number.

slowGEEZR said:

Yes, we have a serious illegal problem in this country, but to blame democrats is an out and out lie.

Click to expand...

Damn right I blame them ……….. and the those that sit on the right side of the aisle !!

twich54 said:

Damn right I blame them ……….. and the those that sit on the right side of the aisle !!

Click to expand...

There are LESS illegal immigrants in the US today than there were during the second term of GWB.

Did you know

In 1986 Reagan signed a bill that gave amnesty to 2.9 million illegal immigrants.

In 2004 GWB pushed an executive order to give amnesty to up to 8 million illegal immigrants.

April 30th, 2015 Jeb Bush said he favors legalizing 11 million undocumented immigrants

Huckabee, Rubio and many other have said that they would support amnesty.

Steve, I'm not perfect, but I don't lie, I go by what I see. The definition of who counts as an official "deportation" was changed, I believe by Bush towards the end of his presidency, to include returns. Returns were those illegals who were caught swimming across the river or hopping the fence, and told by border guards to please return to the other side. Obama continued with that definition. Since it was started at the end of Bush, it makes the appearance of Obama having deported more illegals, but in reality, it was just a result of language being changed. It's hard to get an official number of who gets 'deported'. There is no gate counter at the border to count each illegal getting the boot.

As far as blaming the democrats for illegal immigration, I don't think you are honestly saying the democrats are just as hard on illegal immigration as the republicans, are you? Who keeps push for amnesty? Who provides sanctuary cities? Who advocates for tougher border security, and who doesn't? New York democrats are even pushing for "illegals" to be able to vote in local elections, they don't even want to wait until they do perhaps become citizens.

By the way, I see you are in Texas, so I looked up the list of the most wanted Texans. https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/Texas10MostWanted/fugitives.aspx

"In 1986 Reagan signed a bill that gave amnesty to 2.9 million illegal immigrants."

Did you know that part of that amnesty bill was a promise by the democrats, who controlled congress at the time, that the border would then be secured? They didn't keep that part of the deal.

I saw this image recently and I think there is some truth to it.
BTW I'm not saying anything pro or con about this particular issue. I'm just saying both parties have been involved in amnesty over the years.

"I'm just saying both parties have been involved in amnesty over the years."

I am for amnesty. They can pass an amnesty bill next week, and I would be fine with it. Just secure the border tomorrow so we don't have to revisit this same issue every decade.

twich54 said:

Damn right I blame them ……….. and the those that sit on the right side of the aisle !!

Click to expand...

That's the most correct answer, BOTH parties are to blame, but to single out the democrats is a right wing lie. Yes, there are some democrats who, for purely political reasons, want them in, but the majority recognize there is a serious problem. But, you won't see a republican congress trying to work with our president on this issue, or for that matter, any issue.

So the Donald was up bright & early Friday morning (6AM Cleveland time) to report that he had won the debate.
The GOP has lost control of things, first they let Fox News make a mess of the children's table debate, then they let Trump take control of the main debate.

RE: Last night's debate

Given that there were 10 folks on stage, my take was that there was simply too little time for all the candidates.

I think DON got eight or so minutes with the others around 6 minutes or so.

Very inconclusive to draw anything of substance to say the least.

And there was very little "debate" in the debate. Most answers were the classic one minute sound bites.

I assume this is not true but it almost seemed to me that the candidates knew the questions in advance. The answers were almost all robotic and rehearsed down to the second.

Oh well.

agreed Gordon, with that being said I need to find out more about the Gov from Ohio, seems like a possibility ………...

Gov. Kasich has had his pluses & minuses on voting issues, but:
a] He is a straight shooter.
b] He will play ball with the other team.
c] He doesn't have any of that heavy off-campus baggage that some of the other candidates carry.
d] He is the candidate that the Democrats least want to run against in the general election.

Well. In light of current events, I thought I might rekindle the discussion.

Looks like DT could be / will be the Rep nominee.

What are your thoughts Kevin? And others interested in tis topic.

I must admit that I cannot see how the current "food fight" going on with the Rep nomination process can be helpful come November but maybe I am missing something?

Gordon Gray said:

Well. In light of current events, I thought I might rekindle the discussion.

Looks like DT could be / will be the Rep nominee.

What are your thoughts Kevin? And others interested in tis topic.

I must admit that I cannot see how the current "food fight" going on with the Rep nomination process can be helpful come November but maybe I am missing something?

Click to expand...

I'll chime in..

While I get that DT has, "Tapped into peoples' anger" that doesn't excuse him for his repulsive comments/ uber right wing (supposed) beliefs and lack of qualifications. I never thought I'd state this but - I'd rather have Jeb Bush rather than Trump. Someone please wake me up - this must be a bad dream..

I think we are in a very weird place.

In a recent poll Trump is the most hated person in America followed very closely by Clinton. If that is not the sign that the country wants to tear itself apart, I'm not sure what is.

We are poised to have one of the highest voter turn outs in ages for both sides. However the Dems out number the Reps by a margin.

I also know a number of Republican's who are no longer a member of the GOP and won't be voting in this election.

It appears that there is about to be a Democratic backlash. I suspect that the Dems will not only get the presidency, but they will also take back some seats in Congress.

The whole Supreme Court thing will actually play to the Democrats. If the GOP keep blocking then the election for the presidency is ALSO FOR THE SUPREME COURT.

Then there is the whole specter of Bloomberg who could enter as an Independent. If he splits the delegates so that no one candidate gets a majority then.... the Senate picks the next president.