Donald Trump wants the Clinton Foundation and its contributors investigated. Fine, I don't have a problem with that.

Donald Trump contributed to the Clinton Foundation. So, in effect, Trump is calling for an investigation into himself, among others.

We have gone beyond the pale.

I don't see how calling for an investigation into a charity you've contributed to is calling for an investigation into yourself. Not unless you run the charity.

Right? Some pretty screwed up logic there.

Not really. If you were smarter, I would explain it to you. But, based on your posting history, it would be a waste of time.

Looks like the above is just as bad as it looks.

Senaror's daughter is CEO of company that makes like saving Epipens (medicine injection devises for extreme allergic reactions) that cost $57. She successfully lobbies congress to require schools nationwide to carry Epipens and then raises the price to $300 a pop. Oh yeah, she also was able to pull a corporate inversion meaning the company pays far less taxes despite still being headquartered in the US. Apparently many on govt are afraid to speak out cause daddy is a senator.

CAST A PROTEST VOTE! This sh#t is just getting worse and worse.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-08-24/the-senator-s-daughter-who-raised-prices-on-anti-allergy-epipen

How does this relate to Clinton, other than the fact that Clinton called the price increase outrageous?

It doesn't. Like I said in my first post, I came across that meme, didn't know anything about it, thought it looked like another sketchy Clinton deal. It's not but I posted the article o found and it shows what a cesspool our govt is. Voting from Trump or Clinton isn't going to send any sort of message or effect any change.

Whether the foundation has done good things is not the point. I'm sure it's done some
good and nobody is claiming it hasn't.

The point that's becoming more obvious by the day is that, during her tenure as SOS, if you
wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton you had to pay for it. I doubt that's the way the office
was set up to operate.

Now Bill is out saying he won't be out raising money for the foundation if Hillary is elected.
Secretary of State it was OK, if she get's elected President then it's not? Unbelievable.

It pains me to agree with you but in this case I do. But I'm puzzled that this bothers you more than the things Trump has said and done and says he will do.

Trump is a private citizen, not an elected official living who's gotten rich off politics. Might not make
a difference to you, but as far as I'm concerned a HUGE difference.

Actually both Clinton and Trump are private citizens running for President, no?

The Clintons are career politicians. Trump is not. Trump has not spent a day in elected office. If that
changes, you can rest assured I will hold him accountable for his actions in that role, and conduct himself
in a manner suitable for public office.

I have already agreed with you regarding the Clintons, but if you are suggesting that Trump's past behavior is irrelevant because he was not in politics I strongly disagree.

His supposed bad past behavior has been magnified x10,000 since he entered the race with a R next
to his name. Do you expect me to critique every other businessman in the country? What he does
after he's elected is what's important to me.

What a load of crap. You've been selectively praising his resume for months and now can't even bring yourself to critique that parts that deserve it.

For the record, I think both are poor candidates. But Hillary is exposed as taking money....what politician at that level hasn't? This "smoking gun" conservatives want just isn't anything unique to Hillary Clinton. It's shameful, dishonest, and corrupt, but nothing new and nothing unique. Trump has been consistently unique month over month, in a negative way. That's the difference.

I'm sure he would get a lot more scrutiny on the financial side if he ever released his taxes..... 😛

Whether the foundation has done good things is not the point. I'm sure it's done some
good and nobody is claiming it hasn't.

The point that's becoming more obvious by the day is that, during her tenure as SOS, if you
wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton you had to pay for it. I doubt that's the way the office
was set up to operate.

Now Bill is out saying he won't be out raising money for the foundation if Hillary is elected.
Secretary of State it was OK, if she get's elected President then it's not? Unbelievable.

It pains me to agree with you but in this case I do. But I'm puzzled that this bothers you more than the things Trump has said and done and says he will do.

Trump is a private citizen, not an elected official living who's gotten rich off politics. Might not make
a difference to you, but as far as I'm concerned a HUGE difference.

Actually both Clinton and Trump are private citizens running for President, no?

The Clintons are career politicians. Trump is not. Trump has not spent a day in elected office. If that
changes, you can rest assured I will hold him accountable for his actions in that role, and conduct himself
in a manner suitable for public office.

I have already agreed with you regarding the Clintons, but if you are suggesting that Trump's past behavior is irrelevant because he was not in politics I strongly disagree.

His supposed bad past behavior has been magnified x10,000 since he entered the race with a R next
to his name. Do you expect me to critique every other businessman in the country? What he does
after he's elected is what's important to me.

What a load of crap. You've been selectively praising his resume for months and now can't even bring yourself to critique that parts that deserve it.

I've already done it for months. You said it yourself so why are you angry?

His supposed bad past behavior has been magnified x10,000 since he entered the race with a R next
to his name. Do you expect me to critique every other businessman in the country? What he does
after he's elected is what's important to me.

Critique every businessman? No, just every candidate. How is one supposed to decide between the candidates if one does not consider their past as well as their stated positions for the future? The fact is that past bad behavior for both candidates has been magnified by their opposition. If you don't realize that your partisanship is clouding your vision. Part of evaluating the candidates is assessing their character and the only way to do this is evaluating how they have conducted themselves in the past. If you don't give consideration to both candidates in the process you are not able to make a clear decision are you? I know that there are a lot of folks whose party allegiance is so strong that they are not able or interested in anything that may reflect poorly on their party or it's candidate. Maybe that's you. It's not me. I have never been interested in party politics. I can see flaws and strengths in both candidates and won't try to make nonsensical rationalizations about either.

[Edited on 8/25/2016 by bob1954]

No problem, but what are we electing here, Bob? An Eagle Scout or a Scoutmaster? I don't really
care about what Trump did in his businesses, his college, or much of anything from his private business
career. Just being honest. Nor do I care that he's different in the matter that he's "mean" or abrasive....BFD.

What I DO care about is controlling our borders, strong military, taking better care of our Vets, school choice, creating jobs and a vibrant economy that actually expands (remember that?), deportation of illegal aliens that are criminals and bad actors, fighting terrorism, strong vetting of immigration candidates, energy independence, better trade deals, tax reform, to name a few.

Ms Clinton is not offering these items. Trump is, and that's why he will be getting my vote. He's not lining up for the priesthood, I'll grant you that, but that's not what I'm looking for.

His supposed bad past behavior has been magnified x10,000 since he entered the race with a R next
to his name. Do you expect me to critique every other businessman in the country? What he does
after he's elected is what's important to me.

Critique every businessman? No, just every candidate. How is one supposed to decide between the candidates if one does not consider their past as well as their stated positions for the future? The fact is that past bad behavior for both candidates has been magnified by their opposition. If you don't realize that your partisanship is clouding your vision. Part of evaluating the candidates is assessing their character and the only way to do this is evaluating how they have conducted themselves in the past. If you don't give consideration to both candidates in the process you are not able to make a clear decision are you? I know that there are a lot of folks whose party allegiance is so strong that they are not able or interested in anything that may reflect poorly on their party or it's candidate. Maybe that's you. It's not me. I have never been interested in party politics. I can see flaws and strengths in both candidates and won't try to make nonsensical rationalizations about either.

[Edited on 8/25/2016 by bob1954]

No problem, but what are we electing here, Bob? An Eagle Scout or a Scoutmaster? I don't really
care about what Trump did in his businesses, his college, or much of anything from his private business
career. Just being honest. Nor do I care that he's different in the matter that he's "mean" or abrasive....BFD.

What I DO care about is controlling our borders, strong military, taking better care of our Vets, school choice, creating jobs and a vibrant economy that actually expands (remember that?), deportation of illegal aliens that are criminals and bad actors, fighting terrorism, strong vetting of immigration candidates, energy independence, better trade deals, tax reform, to name a few.

Ms Clinton is not offering these items. Trump is, and that's why he will be getting my vote. He's not lining up for the priesthood, I'll grant you that, but that's not what I'm looking for.

So what do you think of Trumps new immigration policy that he released a couple days ago that is essentially to continue what Obama has been doing for the last 8 years? Tough on immigration has been his key talking point ever since he entered the race and then overnight it changed to the same policy that Obama has. I can't believe that we haven't heard our conservative friends scream about it. Probably because he has an R behind his name.

The "liberal media bias" is as tired as the "racist" accusation. Wah wah wah, the liberal media favors the left and unfairly criticizes the right. Instead of whining like a child about it, one could be an intelligent adult and ponder why the bias exists. I can hear it now...."but the media isn't supposed to be biased". Lots of thing shouldn't happen, but they do. The only logical thing to do is to figure out why it happened and try to correct it. But no, lets just b*tch about it and blame them for our losses.

Whether the foundation has done good things is not the point. I'm sure it's done some
good and nobody is claiming it hasn't.

The point that's becoming more obvious by the day is that, during her tenure as SOS, if you
wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton you had to pay for it. I doubt that's the way the office
was set up to operate.

Now Bill is out saying he won't be out raising money for the foundation if Hillary is elected.
Secretary of State it was OK, if she get's elected President then it's not? Unbelievable.

It pains me to agree with you but in this case I do. But I'm puzzled that this bothers you more than the things Trump has said and done and says he will do.

Trump is a private citizen, not an elected official living who's gotten rich off politics. Might not make
a difference to you, but as far as I'm concerned a HUGE difference.

Actually both Clinton and Trump are private citizens running for President, no?

The Clintons are career politicians. Trump is not. Trump has not spent a day in elected office. If that
changes, you can rest assured I will hold him accountable for his actions in that role, and conduct himself
in a manner suitable for public office.

I have already agreed with you regarding the Clintons, but if you are suggesting that Trump's past behavior is irrelevant because he was not in politics I strongly disagree.

His supposed bad past behavior has been magnified x10,000 since he entered the race with a R next
to his name. Do you expect me to critique every other businessman in the country? What he does
after he's elected is what's important to me.

What a load of crap. You've been selectively praising his resume for months and now can't even bring yourself to critique that parts that deserve it.

I've already done it for months. You said it yourself so why are you angry?

You're such a tool. Who's angry? Me? Ha ha, nope. And what I said is that for months you've been selectively praising his resume and telling us how his business background makes him a great potential POTUS. Now you are saying "I don't really care about what Trump did in his businesses, his college, or much of anything from his private business career." You constantly talk in circles to avoid even acknowledging anything that could be construed as negative, just another one of the partisan wonks falling in line behind a terrible candidate because he's the R nominee. Have you send him any money yet?

His supposed bad past behavior has been magnified x10,000 since he entered the race with a R next
to his name. Do you expect me to critique every other businessman in the country? What he does
after he's elected is what's important to me.

Critique every businessman? No, just every candidate. How is one supposed to decide between the candidates if one does not consider their past as well as their stated positions for the future? The fact is that past bad behavior for both candidates has been magnified by their opposition. If you don't realize that your partisanship is clouding your vision. Part of evaluating the candidates is assessing their character and the only way to do this is evaluating how they have conducted themselves in the past. If you don't give consideration to both candidates in the process you are not able to make a clear decision are you? I know that there are a lot of folks whose party allegiance is so strong that they are not able or interested in anything that may reflect poorly on their party or it's candidate. Maybe that's you. It's not me. I have never been interested in party politics. I can see flaws and strengths in both candidates and won't try to make nonsensical rationalizations about either.

[Edited on 8/25/2016 by bob1954]

No problem, but what are we electing here, Bob? An Eagle Scout or a Scoutmaster? I don't really
care about what Trump did in his businesses, his college, or much of anything from his private business
career. Just being honest. Nor do I care that he's different in the matter that he's "mean" or abrasive....BFD.

What I DO care about is controlling our borders, strong military, taking better care of our Vets, school choice, creating jobs and a vibrant economy that actually expands (remember that?), deportation of illegal aliens that are criminals and bad actors, fighting terrorism, strong vetting of immigration candidates, energy independence, better trade deals, tax reform, to name a few.

Ms Clinton is not offering these items. Trump is, and that's why he will be getting my vote. He's not lining up for the priesthood, I'll grant you that, but that's not what I'm looking for.

So what do you think of Trumps new immigration policy that he released a couple days ago that is essentially to continue what Obama has been doing for the last 8 years? Tough on immigration has been his key talking point ever since he entered the race and then overnight it changed to the same policy that Obama has. I can't believe that we haven't heard our conservative friends scream about it. Probably because he has an R behind his name.

Alloak won't criticize it no matter what it says, if that's what you are looking for.

Whether the foundation has done good things is not the point. I'm sure it's done some
good and nobody is claiming it hasn't.

The point that's becoming more obvious by the day is that, during her tenure as SOS, if you
wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton you had to pay for it. I doubt that's the way the office
was set up to operate.

Now Bill is out saying he won't be out raising money for the foundation if Hillary is elected.
Secretary of State it was OK, if she get's elected President then it's not? Unbelievable.

It pains me to agree with you but in this case I do. But I'm puzzled that this bothers you more than the things Trump has said and done and says he will do.

Trump is a private citizen, not an elected official living who's gotten rich off politics. Might not make
a difference to you, but as far as I'm concerned a HUGE difference.

Actually both Clinton and Trump are private citizens running for President, no?

The Clintons are career politicians. Trump is not. Trump has not spent a day in elected office. If that
changes, you can rest assured I will hold him accountable for his actions in that role, and conduct himself
in a manner suitable for public office.

I have already agreed with you regarding the Clintons, but if you are suggesting that Trump's past behavior is irrelevant because he was not in politics I strongly disagree.

His supposed bad past behavior has been magnified x10,000 since he entered the race with a R next
to his name. Do you expect me to critique every other businessman in the country? What he does
after he's elected is what's important to me.

What a load of crap. You've been selectively praising his resume for months and now can't even bring yourself to critique that parts that deserve it.

I've already done it for months. You said it yourself so why are you angry?

You're such a tool. Who's angry? Me? Ha ha, nope. And what I said is that for months you've been selectively praising his resume and telling us how his business background makes him a great potential POTUS. Now you are saying "I don't really care about what Trump did in his businesses, his college, or much of anything from his private business career." You constantly talk in circles to avoid even acknowledging anything that could be construed as negative, just another one of the partisan wonks falling in line behind a terrible candidate because he's the R nominee. Have you send him any money yet?

I'm not talking in circles, but was perhaps unclear so let me rephrase. I'm not as concerned or alarmed
by what some construe as past bad business practices that (in their opinion) make him unsuitable for
office. That I don't care about. How's that? I do, however, still believe that his background and skill set make him a great potential POTUS. I believe it's time to try someone from the business world. He's lived in that real world, not the product of an Ivy League Law library or faculty lounge.

I clearly stated the POLICY reasons behind my support on this same thread, not the letter beside his name, but you totally ignored that. I can tell you that as soon as a Democrat lines up more closely with my political beliefs I would have no problem voting for them, without hesitation. In this election, Trump happens to line up much more closely with those beliefs.

Whether the foundation has done good things is not the point. I'm sure it's done some
good and nobody is claiming it hasn't.

The point that's becoming more obvious by the day is that, during her tenure as SOS, if you
wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton you had to pay for it. I doubt that's the way the office
was set up to operate.

Now Bill is out saying he won't be out raising money for the foundation if Hillary is elected.
Secretary of State it was OK, if she get's elected President then it's not? Unbelievable.

It pains me to agree with you but in this case I do. But I'm puzzled that this bothers you more than the things Trump has said and done and says he will do.

Trump is a private citizen, not an elected official living who's gotten rich off politics. Might not make
a difference to you, but as far as I'm concerned a HUGE difference.

Actually both Clinton and Trump are private citizens running for President, no?

The Clintons are career politicians. Trump is not. Trump has not spent a day in elected office. If that
changes, you can rest assured I will hold him accountable for his actions in that role, and conduct himself
in a manner suitable for public office.

I have already agreed with you regarding the Clintons, but if you are suggesting that Trump's past behavior is irrelevant because he was not in politics I strongly disagree.

His supposed bad past behavior has been magnified x10,000 since he entered the race with a R next
to his name. Do you expect me to critique every other businessman in the country? What he does
after he's elected is what's important to me.

What a load of crap. You've been selectively praising his resume for months and now can't even bring yourself to critique that parts that deserve it.

I've already done it for months. You said it yourself so why are you angry?

You're such a tool. Who's angry? Me? Ha ha, nope. And what I said is that for months you've been selectively praising his resume and telling us how his business background makes him a great potential POTUS. Now you are saying "I don't really care about what Trump did in his businesses, his college, or much of anything from his private business career." You constantly talk in circles to avoid even acknowledging anything that could be construed as negative, just another one of the partisan wonks falling in line behind a terrible candidate because he's the R nominee. Have you send him any money yet?

I'm not talking in circles, but was perhaps unclear so let me rephrase. I'm not as concerned or alarmed
by what some construe as past bad business practices that (in their opinion) make him unsuitable for
office. That I don't care about. How's that? I do, however, still believe that his background and skill set make him a great potential POTUS. I believe it's time to try someone from the business world. He's lived in that real world, not the product of an Ivy League Law library or faculty lounge.

I clearly stated the POLICY reasons behind my support on this same thread, not the letter beside his name, but you totally ignored that. I can tell you that as soon as a Democrat lines up more closely with my political beliefs I would have no problem voting for them, without hesitation. In this election, Trump happens to line up much more closely with those beliefs.

Fair enough. So, for example, you're ok with him essentially continuing Obama's immigration policy?

For immigration policy, if we have a strong border in place most people would be happy to deal with those living here in a reasonable manner. Past immigration policy was always putting the cart before the horse, promising amnesty while leaving our garage doors wide open overnight. I know when I want to catch some vermin in my house, I close the garage doors first before I set my mouse traps.

The "liberal media bias" is as tired as the "racist" accusation. Wah wah wah, the liberal media favors the left and unfairly criticizes the right. Instead of whining like a child about it, one could be an intelligent adult and ponder why the bias exists. I can hear it now...."but the media isn't supposed to be biased". Lots of thing shouldn't happen, but they do. The only logical thing to do is to figure out why it happened and try to correct it.

Pretty simple really. The vast majority of people who enter the field of journalism are self-described
Liberals and vote for Democrats. The logical answer is to figure out a way to lure more
Conservatives into the field. That would be a start.

https://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/

Whether the foundation has done good things is not the point. I'm sure it's done some
good and nobody is claiming it hasn't.

The point that's becoming more obvious by the day is that, during her tenure as SOS, if you
wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton you had to pay for it. I doubt that's the way the office
was set up to operate.

Now Bill is out saying he won't be out raising money for the foundation if Hillary is elected.
Secretary of State it was OK, if she get's elected President then it's not? Unbelievable.

It pains me to agree with you but in this case I do. But I'm puzzled that this bothers you more than the things Trump has said and done and says he will do.

Trump is a private citizen, not an elected official living who's gotten rich off politics. Might not make
a difference to you, but as far as I'm concerned a HUGE difference.

Actually both Clinton and Trump are private citizens running for President, no?

The Clintons are career politicians. Trump is not. Trump has not spent a day in elected office. If that
changes, you can rest assured I will hold him accountable for his actions in that role, and conduct himself
in a manner suitable for public office.

I have already agreed with you regarding the Clintons, but if you are suggesting that Trump's past behavior is irrelevant because he was not in politics I strongly disagree.

His supposed bad past behavior has been magnified x10,000 since he entered the race with a R next
to his name. Do you expect me to critique every other businessman in the country? What he does
after he's elected is what's important to me.

What a load of crap. You've been selectively praising his resume for months and now can't even bring yourself to critique that parts that deserve it.

I've already done it for months. You said it yourself so why are you angry?

You're such a tool. Who's angry? Me? Ha ha, nope. And what I said is that for months you've been selectively praising his resume and telling us how his business background makes him a great potential POTUS. Now you are saying "I don't really care about what Trump did in his businesses, his college, or much of anything from his private business career." You constantly talk in circles to avoid even acknowledging anything that could be construed as negative, just another one of the partisan wonks falling in line behind a terrible candidate because he's the R nominee. Have you send him any money yet?

I'm not talking in circles, but was perhaps unclear so let me rephrase. I'm not as concerned or alarmed
by what some construe as past bad business practices that (in their opinion) make him unsuitable for
office. That I don't care about. How's that? I do, however, still believe that his background and skill set make him a great potential POTUS. I believe it's time to try someone from the business world. He's lived in that real world, not the product of an Ivy League Law library or faculty lounge.

I clearly stated the POLICY reasons behind my support on this same thread, not the letter beside his name, but you totally ignored that. I can tell you that as soon as a Democrat lines up more closely with my political beliefs I would have no problem voting for them, without hesitation. In this election, Trump happens to line up much more closely with those beliefs.

Does it not bother you that he clearly has no knowledge or respect for the Constitution? You put a lot of stock in his "business background" but he has never been accountable to anyone. He runs businesses he owns and he does what he wants. He does not answer to stockholders or a board of directors. He's THE man and his word is final. Is this really a good background for the leader of a democracy where your powers are Constitutionally limited, you must work with other branches of government to be effective, there is a system of checks and balances that need to be respected, and he is accountable to we the people? He's demonstrated that he does not honor contracts so how do you expect him to respect the law? His business experience would be more appropriate for someone running for dictator than president. His campaign rhetoric and promises have reflected this. I think an experienced businessman would be good as president, just not this one.

Whether the foundation has done good things is not the point. I'm sure it's done some
good and nobody is claiming it hasn't.

The point that's becoming more obvious by the day is that, during her tenure as SOS, if you
wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton you had to pay for it. I doubt that's the way the office
was set up to operate.

Now Bill is out saying he won't be out raising money for the foundation if Hillary is elected.
Secretary of State it was OK, if she get's elected President then it's not? Unbelievable.

It pains me to agree with you but in this case I do. But I'm puzzled that this bothers you more than the things Trump has said and done and says he will do.

Trump is a private citizen, not an elected official living who's gotten rich off politics. Might not make
a difference to you, but as far as I'm concerned a HUGE difference.

Actually both Clinton and Trump are private citizens running for President, no?

The Clintons are career politicians. Trump is not. Trump has not spent a day in elected office. If that
changes, you can rest assured I will hold him accountable for his actions in that role, and conduct himself
in a manner suitable for public office.

I have already agreed with you regarding the Clintons, but if you are suggesting that Trump's past behavior is irrelevant because he was not in politics I strongly disagree.

His supposed bad past behavior has been magnified x10,000 since he entered the race with a R next
to his name. Do you expect me to critique every other businessman in the country? What he does
after he's elected is what's important to me.

What a load of crap. You've been selectively praising his resume for months and now can't even bring yourself to critique that parts that deserve it.

I've already done it for months. You said it yourself so why are you angry?

You're such a tool. Who's angry? Me? Ha ha, nope. And what I said is that for months you've been selectively praising his resume and telling us how his business background makes him a great potential POTUS. Now you are saying "I don't really care about what Trump did in his businesses, his college, or much of anything from his private business career." You constantly talk in circles to avoid even acknowledging anything that could be construed as negative, just another one of the partisan wonks falling in line behind a terrible candidate because he's the R nominee. Have you send him any money yet?

I'm not talking in circles, but was perhaps unclear so let me rephrase. I'm not as concerned or alarmed
by what some construe as past bad business practices that (in their opinion) make him unsuitable for
office. That I don't care about. How's that? I do, however, still believe that his background and skill set make him a great potential POTUS. I believe it's time to try someone from the business world. He's lived in that real world, not the product of an Ivy League Law library or faculty lounge.

I clearly stated the POLICY reasons behind my support on this same thread, not the letter beside his name, but you totally ignored that. I can tell you that as soon as a Democrat lines up more closely with my political beliefs I would have no problem voting for them, without hesitation. In this election, Trump happens to line up much more closely with those beliefs.

Does it not bother you that he clearly has no knowledge or respect for the Constitution? You put a lot of stock in his "business background" but he has never been accountable to anyone. He runs businesses he owns and he does what he wants. He does not answer to stockholders or a board of directors. He's THE man and his word is final. Is this really a good background for the leader of a democracy where your powers are Constitutionally limited, you must work with other branches of government to be effective, there is a system of checks and balances that need to be respected, and he is accountable to we the people? He's demonstrated that he does not honor contracts so how do you expect him to respect the law? His business experience would be more appropriate for someone running for dictator than president. His campaign rhetoric and promises have reflected this. I think an experienced businessman would be good as president, just not this one.

Home run.

For immigration policy, if we have a strong border in place most people would be happy to deal with those living here in a reasonable manner. Past immigration policy was always putting the cart before the horse, promising amnesty while leaving our garage doors wide open overnight. I know when I want to catch some vermin in my house, I close the garage doors first before I set my mouse traps.

So does that mean you support current immigration policy?

For immigration policy, if we have a strong border in place most people would be happy to deal with those living here in a reasonable manner. Past immigration policy was always putting the cart before the horse, promising amnesty while leaving our garage doors wide open overnight. I know when I want to catch some vermin in my house, I close the garage doors first before I set my mouse traps.

So does that mean you support current immigration policy?

I do not believe the fallacy that "Our border is secure" touted by Rep Guitierrez and his ilk.

For immigration policy, if we have a strong border in place most people would be happy to deal with those living here in a reasonable manner. Past immigration policy was always putting the cart before the horse, promising amnesty while leaving our garage doors wide open overnight. I know when I want to catch some vermin in my house, I close the garage doors first before I set my mouse traps.

So does that mean you support current immigration policy?

I do not believe the fallacy that "Our border is secure" touted by Rep Guitierrez and his ilk.

That's not what I asked. Trump's newly released immigration plan mirrors the one in place today. Do you support it?

I believe it's time to try someone from the business world. He's lived in that real world, not the product of an Ivy League Law library or faculty lounge.

George W. Bush
B.A, History - Yale
M.B.A., Harvard Business School, the only President to have earned an MBA
Founder and Chairman, Arbusto Energy
Managing General Partner, Texas Rangers
End of his 2nd term, near collapse of American economy

This is the real world? I need to get me some of that real world livin!

I believe it's time to try someone from the business world. He's lived in that real world, not the product of an Ivy League Law library or faculty lounge.

George W. Bush
B.A, History - Yale
M.B.A., Harvard Business School, the only President to have earned an MBA
Founder and Chairman, Arbusto Energy
Managing General Partner, Texas Rangers
End of his 2nd term, near collapse of American economy

From one of the most politically active families in the history of the Republic, if not the most. Nice try.

For immigration policy, if we have a strong border in place most people would be happy to deal with those living here in a reasonable manner. Past immigration policy was always putting the cart before the horse, promising amnesty while leaving our garage doors wide open overnight. I know when I want to catch some vermin in my house, I close the garage doors first before I set my mouse traps.

So does that mean you support current immigration policy?

I do not believe the fallacy that "Our border is secure" touted by Rep Guitierrez and his ilk.

That's not what I asked. Trump's newly released immigration plan mirrors the one in place today. Do you support it?

Trump and Obama will not have a similar immigration policy. Believe me.

For immigration policy, if we have a strong border in place most people would be happy to deal with those living here in a reasonable manner. Past immigration policy was always putting the cart before the horse, promising amnesty while leaving our garage doors wide open overnight. I know when I want to catch some vermin in my house, I close the garage doors first before I set my mouse traps.

So does that mean you support current immigration policy?

I do not believe the fallacy that "Our border is secure" touted by Rep Guitierrez and his ilk.

That's not what I asked. Trump's newly released immigration plan mirrors the one in place today. Do you support it?

Trump and Obama will not have a similar immigration policy. Believe me.

So Trump's new plan is not his actual plan and will be replaced by a new new plan if/when he takes office? I'm so confused.

I believe it's time to try someone from the business world. He's lived in that real world, not the product of an Ivy League Law library or faculty lounge.

George W. Bush
B.A, History - Yale
M.B.A., Harvard Business School, the only President to have earned an MBA
Founder and Chairman, Arbusto Energy
Managing General Partner, Texas Rangers
End of his 2nd term, near collapse of American economy

From one of the most politically active families in the history of the Republic, if not the most. Nice try.

And that's a bad thing, right?

I believe it's time to try someone from the business world. He's lived in that real world, not the product of an Ivy League Law library or faculty lounge.

George W. Bush
B.A, History - Yale
M.B.A., Harvard Business School, the only President to have earned an MBA
Founder and Chairman, Arbusto Energy
Managing General Partner, Texas Rangers
End of his 2nd term, near collapse of American economy

From one of the most politically active families in the history of the Republic, if not the most. Nice try.

And that's a bad thing, right?

Probably, if you're expecting anything but poitics as usual. I was fully expecting someone to bring up
Bush and that's a poor comparison IMO. The Bush family is steeped in politics, Trump hasn't been.

For immigration policy, if we have a strong border in place most people would be happy to deal with those living here in a reasonable manner. Past immigration policy was always putting the cart before the horse, promising amnesty while leaving our garage doors wide open overnight. I know when I want to catch some vermin in my house, I close the garage doors first before I set my mouse traps.

So does that mean you support current immigration policy?

I do not believe the fallacy that "Our border is secure" touted by Rep Guitierrez and his ilk.

That's not what I asked. Trump's newly released immigration plan mirrors the one in place today.

You mean his major objective will be to secure Democrat voters?

I believe it's time to try someone from the business world. He's lived in that real world, not the product of an Ivy League Law library or faculty lounge.

George W. Bush
B.A, History - Yale
M.B.A., Harvard Business School, the only President to have earned an MBA
Founder and Chairman, Arbusto Energy
Managing General Partner, Texas Rangers
End of his 2nd term, near collapse of American economy

From one of the most politically active families in the history of the Republic, if not the most. Nice try.

Actually, the biggest "nice try" is your continued effort to ignore the fact that Donald Trump has been a public figure in American pop culture for 35 years. You were the one that kept saying that Obama wasn't vetted. You are the one that kept wondering why people didn't take Obama's history and who he was around and who influenced him more into account when considering him for President. Now, past history doesn't matter at all. Quite a reversal.

But, the weakest "try" is this inane suggestion made by so many people that Trump is some sort of "outsider." That he doesn't run in the same social circles as influential members of business and government. That somehow the fact that he and the Clintons have been friends for years and they attended one of his weddings doesn't mean anything. That somehow in a lifetime of property, retail and casino management he's never once had contact with a politician. There are countless examples of businessmen moving in and out of the public and private sector. The fact that Trump hasn't done that yet doesn't do a thing to solidify his "outsider" status. How many Presidents in your lifetime have promised to change government, unite the people, be the one to breakthrough the way of doing things in Washington, and then they get there and just become the newest replacement part in the machine?

"I think we need a businessman as President, regardless of his performance in business." That's just odd.

I believe it's time to try someone from the business world. He's lived in that real world, not the product of an Ivy League Law library or faculty lounge.

George W. Bush
B.A, History - Yale
M.B.A., Harvard Business School, the only President to have earned an MBA
Founder and Chairman, Arbusto Energy
Managing General Partner, Texas Rangers
End of his 2nd term, near collapse of American economy

From one of the most politically active families in the history of the Republic, if not the most. Nice try.

Actually, the biggest "nice try" is your continued effort to ignore the fact that Donald Trump has been a public figure in American pop culture for 35 years. You were the one that kept saying that Obama wasn't vetted. You are the one that kept wondering why people didn't take Obama's history and who he was around and who influenced him more into account when considering him for President. Now, past history doesn't matter at all. Quite a reversal.

But, the weakest "try" is this inane suggestion made by so many people that Trump is some sort of "outsider." That he doesn't run in the same social circles as influential members of business and government. That somehow the fact that he and the Clintons have been friends for years and they attended one of his weddings doesn't mean anything. That somehow in a lifetime of property, retail and casino management he's never once had contact with a politician. There are countless examples of businessmen moving in and out of the public and private sector. The fact that Trump hasn't done that yet doesn't do a thing to solidify his "outsider" status. How many Presidents in your lifetime have promised to change government, unite the people, be the one to breakthrough the way of doing things in Washington, and then they get there and just become the newest replacement part in the machine?

"I think we need a businessman as President, regardless of his performance in business." That's just odd.

1. You said it yourself, Trump has been a public figure in pop culture for 35 years. Was Obama?
Few even knew who he was or much of anything about him. Unlike Trump, for most people he pretty
much came out of nowhere. Yet, still he wasn't vetted and much of his life remains a mystery even
to this day.

2. Being friends with the Clintons or traveling in the same circles with politicians doesn't make you one.
Prior to this election, he has never run for/nor served a day in an elected office. You may object to the
term "outsider." Let's try "non-politician." How's that?

3. Not surprisingly, you fail to view Trump as a success in business. Many would differ. Millions upon
millions try, and few accomplish what he has. He hasn't been a Boy Scout or been free of failure, not
unlike many world class entrepreneurs. The incessant effort to make him out to be some horrible person
in general is not having much of an effect. Democrats tend to do that with every Republican candidate
it's gotten stale. Beyond stale.

[Edited on 8/25/2016 by alloak41]