re: Pres. Trump needs to read the riot act to WH staff

Hey, cuckeye, if you're for open borders, if you wanted a liberal-moderate on the Supreme Court, and if you enjoyed 8 years of Mr. "You didn't build that" community agitator, then that's on you.

But that's opposite of what Trump is doing. Y ou obviously don't kn9w politics if you think what we're seeing isn't an example of conservatism.

PS - Why do I even bother with a stupid soundbyte fool like you? Note to self: in the future, just let the idiot post his "melt" soundbytes and ignore him.

quote:

---

Find a leaker indict and convict him or her.

---

For what? Talking to a reporter? You have to be a fricking idiot to think that someone could be indicted for telling a reporter that, for example, Rosenstein threatened to quit.

posting from work again?

Our taxpayer dollars hard at work, folks.

quote:

---

posting from work again?

---

Ha ha. Fail, I'm off through the 17th. Have some more work being done on the house. I did go in for a few hours yesterday to triage this week's production requirements for my guys. Admittedly some posting took place.

quote:

---

Our taxpayer dollars going down the drain.

---

I'll just repost this.

quote:

---

I actually developed a formula to make you guys feel better. Bottom line, by my calculation, if you're from certain states your tax dollars don't actually support me. Since the people of those states collectively receive more in individual and business subsidies, military expenditures, and other forms of aid than they contribute, you can consider your ferderal tax dollars recycled back into your needy state. And not only your money, but some from random people from New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, Washington, etc. So in reality they pay for me to screw around on the internet, and still pump money into your state. You, on the other hand, are only reinvesting in your own state. I think you come out ahead on that deal.

---

And nice dodge, rook.

They've reportedly had a few of these type meetings, and details of those meetings are immediately leaked.

quote:

---

Admittedly the allusions to the old southern brand of "conservative populism" are colorful, but they are none the less appropriate. Actually take a moment to read your own posts sometimes. Throw in JoshNorris, Sentrius, Pimpdaddy, and newfound "conservative" darling SirWinston. Your posts evidence a political consciousness built upon identity politics. I

---

You're so delusional, it isn't even funny. It's your side that plays identity politics 24/7. The race card, the homophobic cars, the gender card, etc. You're such a bigot, you participate in a forum disproportionately consisting of Southerners, and you do nothing but denigrate these people. And then, you want to come back and talk about us engaging in identity politcs?? That's rich, Clint.

You even bizarrely referred to yourself as a "Traditional conservative" last night. Okay, Mr. Traditional Conservative, I challenge you to answer some of the following:

(1) As a traditional conservative, why don't you favor Trump's approach to ILLEGAL immigration over what Obama did? Why haven't you been praising Trump for allowing ICE to round up illegals, especially those who have committed crimes? Why haven't you been praising Trump for getting tough with sanctuary cities? If you're really a "Traditional Conservative," aren't you bothered by cities that openly defy America's laws against illegal immigration?


I was going to ask you something else, but let's see if you're man enough to honestly answer this first. As a traditional conservative, why aren't you supporting Trump's much more aggressive policy against ILLEGAL immigration?

For once, man up and give an honest answer. Leave your various cards in your pocket.


Dare you......

quote:

---

If you'r honest you will admit we've never had such a clown show in the WH before.

---

2009-2017.


unless, of course, you enjoy seeing things like an epidemic of cop assassinations.

I support the detention and immediate expulsion of any serious or violent offender in this country illegally. I also support the enactment and enforcement of policies that disincentivize illegal migration into this country and penalizes businesses who knowingly employ illegals. Unfortunately, having a basic understanding of the issue, I know that doesn't solve the problem because we already have on the order of 11-14M folks living here who are mostly honest, productive people. Any comprehensive reform, and several plans have been floated, has to propose a solution to this problem. Trump's people rolling out press releases everytime a dozen people are rounded up is nothing but mindless red meat for his base. It doesn't get at the problem. Hell enforcement actually stepped up under Bush and further still under Obama. And coupled with the drop in migrants and number of voluntary returnees during the recession, net migration from between us and Mexico has generally been negative since 2008. So again, you'll have to forgive me for keeping my pants on because a few Mexicans are getting sent back. And the wall? Maybe the dumbest major policy proposal in recent memory. Free people don't live behind walls and sane people don't see the need for one between two friendly nations who conduct almost $600B a year in trade. Mexican labor here and in Mexico are a boon to the US economy and one of the reasons our cost of living remains low relative to the rest of the western world. We need to figure out a way to lawfully, ethically marry the very real demand for immigrant labor in this country with legal, hardworking people. And citizenship doesn't have to be the final outcome.

Sanctuary cities. Well let's talk about what they are. It's my understanding that the theory behind sanctuary cities is the same one behind needle exchanges and methadone clinics. In criminal justice it's a term called harm reduction. In most sanctuary cities, the "sanctuary" provision essentially means that if an illegal immigrant needs to report a more serious crime which poses a greater threat to a community than that person being illegal does, he or she will not be detained and handed over simply because of his or her status. So if you know a local pimp is pandering 11 yo girls on he street in your neighborhood, you can report that and not face a thorough inquiry into your background. I see the logic in that. We had similar provisions for under aged drinkers who used the command designator driver (safe ride). It acknowledged the existence of one bad act which we essentially accepted as an immutable reality (most 18-21yo men are going to drink) but mitigated the punishment for that act to prevent a worse one (DUI). We'd had a lot of DUIs which culminated in one kid killing his best friend and paralyzingly himself in a bad accident. Our DUIs led the carrier fleet, but were cut in half after this program was instituted. I have mixed feelings. We know 14m people are here illegally and we generally know where they are and what kind of profile they have. But we aren't going to deport the ones who aren't involved in violent crime. I'm not reflexively a "law and order at all costs" sort, and like most people I don't resent illegals for wanting a better life for themselves and their families. Economic migration predates what we'd call civilization and it's never been altogether stopped by national boundaries. But citizenship of this country--present or future--need't be a prerequisite to participate in our economy. We have to work out a way to see to it that it's done in an orderly, controlled manner, however, with registered workers living in the open, paying taxes, etc.

You're right. We do have to figure out what to do with the majority of the illegal immigrants who are already here. You can search my post history, and you won't find where I've ever said that I thought they were all going back. in fact, I think Trump has already signaled that he isn't interested in sending them all back.

However, I do think that you are underplaying the significance of what the Trump Administration is doing right now. They are primarily focusing on apprehending and deporting CRIMINAL illegals. That's something that every American should both understand and appreciate, imo.

Also, and I know some people are LOATHE to give Trump credit for this, but by all accounts illegal border crossings are down substantially. Over the past couple of months, I've seen the percentage decline at anywhere from 60-73%. Obviously, potential illegals know that it's a totally different dynamic in play now. I give President Trump much credit for this, and I think any fair-minded person should, too. It's simply undeniable.

As for sanctuary cities, I will never understand this rationale that we can't go after illegals because they need to feel free to report a crime. How much crime are they witnessing? If there's that much crime in these communities, all the more reason to deport them.

So, here's my summary of what you posted:

(1) We have some agreement regarding the majority of illegals here. But, we need to secure our Southern border first. I've seen this movie before. Reagan signed an amnesty bill, but he thought he had an agreement with Tip O'Neill to simultaneously secure the border. I'm not sure, but I think the plan was to build a wall back then. Regardless, Tip O'Neill got the amnesty he wanted and then stiffed Reagan on the border security aspect of the deal. My stance? Secure the border FIRST, and then I think you will see some flexibility from Trump regarding the people already here.

(2) For the reason stated, I don't agree with you on sanctuary cities. They have a significant criminal element included in the overall illegal immigrant community, and those people need to go. Too many horror stories about multiple criminal offenders who are still here.

(3) I agree with you regarding the need to have a comprehensive policy regarding immigrants coming here to work. Let's secure the border, and then the people coming here on work visas or whatever should be coming here on OUR TERMS. The days of "If you can get here, you can stay here" need to end.

So, that's where I agree/disagree with you. Thanks for the reasoned response.