Author Topic: President Trump  (Read 472314 times)


DDF

  • Guest
Trump - Right or Wrong
« Reply #851 on: March 12, 2016, 04:07:43 PM »
For better or worse (in my mind's eye.... for the great betterment), one thing is undeniable;

Trump's candidacy is bringing to much needed light, the GREAT disdain the Right and th Left have for each other.

I think that is the first healing step.....except that the losers should all be rounded up, placed in an internment camps and sent to a country more to their way of thinking, "Venezuela" and their wonderfully successful example of socialism, for the left, for example.

I have zero interest in living peacefully with anyone, that thinks that because I was born a certain color, that I owe them something or don't have a right to even express my opinions publicly. I draw the line on that.

When people think they have the right to deny your civil rights, skulls crumbling under boots, seems like a legitimate alternative, because they have already demonstrated that you don't deserve the same rights they demand for themselves.

I'll make know apologies when this all comes tumbling down. It will be th rebirth of something better for the people still around.

Watching what happened last night was disgusting. If the Left wants to be violent, I say let them..... and see where it all goes. I'm accustomed to it, others are too.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
"I'm angry!"
« Reply #852 on: March 12, 2016, 10:53:26 PM »


objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Jeanine Pirro Defends Trump Against Blame for Chicago Protests...
« Reply #854 on: March 14, 2016, 06:09:35 AM »
Frankly, though I prefer Ted Cruz over Donald Trump, I was disgusted over the weekend with BOTH Rubio and Cruz - not to mention the media - for blaming Trump for the violence at the rally in Chicago, which Trump wisely - in my opinion - cancelled.  Free speech is the bedrock of this republic.  The First Amendment is first for a reason - the Founders understood its importance.  Both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio know better - but they are choosing to leverage this to their own political advantage by blaming Trump and his supporters.  MANY of those protesters who participated in the altercations at the Chicago event were holding Bernie Sanders signs and chanting "Bernie! Bernie!"  Yet no one in the media or anywhere else is placing blame on Bernie Sanders - and rightly so.  So reverse the situation for a moment - what if TRUMP supporters were filmed physically assaulting others in the crowd at a Bernie Sanders rally.  Do you think we would hear condemnation of Trump for "inciting" this violence?  You damn well better believe we would.  There is a clear double-standard here, and Trump-haters - including other candidates and the media - are doing their best to promote the absurd idea that Trump is to blame for this situation by "inciting" his supporters.  This was CLEARLY an organized protest designed to garner exactly the type of media attention and condemnation of Trump that it did.

Judge Jeanine Pirro did a SUPERB job of exposing this in her opening statement this past Saturday night:  http://video.foxnews.com/v/4799320342001/judge-jeanine-words-are-not-an-excuse-to-become-violent/?playlist_id=937116552001#sp=show-clips
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #855 on: March 14, 2016, 06:53:21 AM »
Definitely a double standard. 

these protesters show up solely to disrupt and get fight up to the faces of the attendees and they are the ones starting the confrontation.  If they want to do it outside where police have designated areas for this fine , but to sneak into the rallies and do this is clear they are the troublemakers

Notice there was not one peep mentioned on CNN about why that guy was being led out by police; the one who got sucker punched.  He was no angle obviously.

All the CNN feminazis with their concerned and and troubled looks about the "hate speech" at the Trump rallies. 

I would love to see some Trump or Cruz supporters sneak  into a Sanders or clinton rally and see how far they get before a mob beats on them.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #856 on: March 14, 2016, 07:18:57 AM »
However OTOH Trump is playing right into the hands of the left with the way in which he talks.  It seems to me he could be firm and strong but smarter about it.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #857 on: March 14, 2016, 10:24:20 AM »
Exactly so.  His blustering bombast taints valid points and by so doing he makes it harder for others to make these points.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Left-wing Fascists Go After Donald Trump...
« Reply #859 on: March 14, 2016, 08:27:29 PM »
FROM FERGUSON TO CHICAGO

March 14, 2016  Matthew Vadum - frontpagemag.com

The riot planned and executed by the Left at the canceled Donald Trump campaign rally in Chicago on Friday was just the latest in a long series of mob disturbances manufactured by radicals to advance their political agendas.

Even so, it is a particularly poisonous assault on the American body politic that imperils the nation's most important free institution – the ballot.

"The meticulously orchestrated #Chicago assault on our free election process is as unAmerican as it gets," tweeted actor James Woods. "It is a dangerous precedent."

This so-called protest, and the disruptions at subsequent Trump events over the weekend, were not spontaneous, organic demonstrations. The usual culprits were involved behind the scenes. The George Soros-funded organizers of the riot at the University of Illinois at Chicago relied on the same fascistic tactics the Left has been perfecting for decades – including claiming to be peaceful and pro-democracy even as they use violence to disrupt the democratic process.

Activists associated with MoveOn, Black Lives Matter, and Occupy Wall Street, all of which have been embraced by Democrats and funded by radical speculator George Soros, participated in shutting down the Trump campaign event. Soros recently also launched a $15 million voter-mobilization effort against Trump in Colorado, Florida, and Nevada through a new super PAC called Immigrant Voters Win. The title is a characteristic misdirection since Trump supports immigration that is legal. It’s the invasion of illegals who have not been vetted and are filling America’s welfare rolls and jails that is the problem.

Among the extremist groups involved in disrupting the Trump rally in Chicago were the revolutionary communist organization ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), National Council of La Raza (“the Race”), and the Illinois Coalition of Immigrant and Rights Reform. President Obama's unrepentant terrorist collaborator Bill Ayers, who was one of the leaders of Days of Rage the precursor riot at the Democratic convention in Chicago in 1968, also showed up to stir the pot.

The goal was to help reinforce the media narrative that Trump is a dangerous authoritarian figure who needs to be stopped now before he upsets too many people and proclaims himself emperor, or some fevered fantasy like that. The organized rioters who showed up at UIC to taunt and bait Trump supporters, hoped to generate compelling TV clips that could be used to attack the Republican front-runner.

The people who infiltrated the Trump rally and attacked his supporters weren't mere protesters and were not nonviolent. By now, after decades of getting away with lawlessness and mayhem, nonviolent left-wing protesters are as rare as four-leaf clovers.

They are violent agitators, trained in Alinsky-style disruption, aiming to shut Trump and his supporters down by any means they can get away with. These modern-day brownshirts use force and the threat of force to harass and intimidate, and to provoke people who have come to a peaceful assembly to hear their candidate speak.

"Many of these people come from Bernie [Sanders]," Trump said, pointing out how since the 1968 riot at the Democratic convention street radicals and party radicals have become a seamless force. On "Face the Nation" Trump called them "professional disrupters" a polite name for incipient fascists.

Since the liberal media was already blaming him for the anti-Trump thuggery, he told them, "I don't accept responsibility," Trump said on Sunday TV. "I do not condone violence in any shape."

In speeches since Friday Trump regularly invokes Bernie Sanders when an activist disrupts. He calls them "Bernie's people." At one stop, Trump said, "Get 'em out. Hey Bernie, get your people in line."

Although Sanders supporters are well-represented among the anti-Trump thugs, the self-described socialist senator from Vermont denied the charge. But Bernie’s campaign is so focused on demonizing the rich and blaming them for America’s problems, the hatred he is retailing can reasonably be called an incitement to those who buy his propaganda and support him.

Sanders after all is a lifetime admirer of Communist states like the Soviet Union and Cuba where this kind of thuggery is a political norm.  So even if he’s telling the truth and did give the orders to his followers to be there, he’s lying. They came because they hate rich people too.

Major organizations of the left who are backing Sanders, like Moveon.org openly bragged about trampling on Trump's free speech rights in Chicago, and promised more of it.

Incredibly, instead of blaming the Left for the attacks on Trump, all three of Trump's remaining rivals for the GOP nomination are joining the left in blaming him for the violence that unfolded. If the roles were reversed, leftists would call it blaming the victim.

Continuing the scorched earth policy that has damaged his campaign Marco Rubio laid the blame at Trump’s door. "This is what a culture and a society looks like when everyone goes around saying whatever the heck they want. The result is, it all breaks down. It's called chaos. It's called anarchy and that's what we're careening towards."

Breaking of ranks on the right in order to blame Trump is a betrayal that has ominous implications for the future of the conservative cause.

Rubio and John Kasich have gone even further, wavering on their pledge to support Trump if he wins the party's nomination.

Rubio downplays the fact that it's the activist Left that is generating chaos, not Donald Trump and his supporters, a dagger aimed right at the heart of the Republican coalition.

Robert Spencer reflects that these Republican attacks "have tacitly encouraged the rioters by claiming that Trump is at least partially responsible for what they did." It’s a re-imposition of political correctness. Spencer explains: "In that scenario, you see, it becomes incumbent upon Trump not to say anything that Leftist thugs might dislike, or he will bear partial responsibility for what they do. Cruz, Rubio and Kasich, of course, will also have to be careful not to 'create an environment' that might force the Left-fascists to shut them down as well. But unless they become clones of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, they will inevitably end up creating that 'environment' anyway, despite their being more decorous and careful than Trump. And then they will be responsible for what they get, won’t they?"

The left didn’t need a Trump provocation. For the left, the issue is never the issue: the issue is always the revolution, that is, the war against Amerikkka, as an SDS radical put it many years ago. Everything is an excuse to advance the radical cause.

Meanwhile, leftist Alex Seitz-Wald wrote a glowing review at NBC.com of the activists' anti-democratic efforts in Chicago, as if silencing candidates were a legitimate form of political activity as American as apple pie. "What made Chicago different,” Seitz wrote, were its scale and the organization behind the effort. Hundreds of young, largely black and brown people poured in from across the city, taking over whole sections of the arena and bracing for trouble. And as the repeated chants of 'Ber-nie' demonstrated, it was largely organized by supporters of Sanders, the Democratic presidential candidate who has struggled to win over black voters but whose revolutionary streak has excited radicals of all racial demographics.”

Seitz urged his readers to "'Remember the #TrumpRally wasn't just luck. It took organizers from dozens of organizations and thousands of people to pull off. Great work,' tweeted People for Bernie, a large unofficial pro-Sanders organization founded by veterans of the Occupy movement and other leftist activists."

Chicago is overrun by radical leftists and is in a constant state of turmoil nowadays so throwing together a demonstration against anyone to the right of Che Guevara wasn't too difficult a task. Sanders backers and Black Lives Matter thugs were easy to find on social media. At the UIC campus, the Black Student Union and a group called Fearless and Undocumented got to work recruiting disrupters.

Illegal alien Jorge Mena, a graduate student at UIC, started a petition at MoveOn.org demanding the school cancel the event. It garnered in excess of 50,000 signatures including UIC faculty. MoveOn paid for signs and a banner and emailed its Chicagoland members, urging them to get involved.

On the night of the rally, activists snuck into the venue and assembled at "designated multiple rallying points around the venue to avoid arousing suspicion of authorities with large congregations," Seitz-Wald writes.

"As activists slipped into the lines, they were told to blend in with the crowd and act natural. Inside, about 100 protesters received coveted orange wristbands allowing them access to the floor. Even as organizers tried to maintain calm, some scuffles with Trump fans started right away, and police began removing people." And that was all that was necessary. The powder was in place and the fuse was lit. But then Trump consulted with his security people and cancelled the event.

This is only the beginning, regardless of whether Trump secures the GOP nomination for president. Socialism is coming to America – at the ballot box and in the streets.

Editors’ note: The Freedom Center is a 501c3 non-profit organization. Therefore we do not endorse political candidates either in primary or general elections. However, as defenders of America’s social contract, we insist that the rules laid down by both parties at the outset of campaigns be respected, and that the results be decided by free elections. We will oppose any attempt to rig the system and deny voters of either party their constitutional right to elect candidates of their choice.
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump, the plurality problem
« Reply #860 on: March 15, 2016, 06:41:31 AM »
Hopefully (from my point of view) DT will lose Illinois and Ohio today.  In a contested convention, each delegate should switch their vote to the frontrunner on the second ballot and turn a plurality of support into a majority IF they believe that is in the best interest of the party and the country.  This could quite turn into a fiasco if the anti-Trump passion in the convention is strong and divided. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sean Trende on nominations and contested conventions:

"The common rejoinder I hear is that the will of the people will have been thwarted if Trump wins the most votes, but is not the nominee. This is pure and simple nonsense. There is no expression of the “people’s will” with a plurality of the vote, especially when it is somewhere in the 30 percent range (as Trump’s is)."
...
"The GOP has required that its nominees receive a majority of the vote from its delegates for 160 years now. And this requirement has been consequential: Along the way, multiple candidates have received a plurality of the vote, yet failed to become the nominee. For example (note: The following percentages are of votes cast, not of the total number of delegates, many of whom would abstain in early rounds): William Seward (1860, 41.5 percent of the vote); James G. Blaine (1876, 45.9 percent); Ulysses S. Grant (1880, 41.3 percent); John Sherman (1888, 33.9 percent); Leonard Wood (1920, 45.5 percent); Frank Lowden (1920, 41.5 percent); Tom Dewey (1940, 36.1 percent)."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/03/15/plurality_wont_entitle_trump_to_the_nomination_129969.html

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #861 on: March 15, 2016, 07:30:58 AM »
If Trump with a majority but under 50% and does not get nominated I would fully expect him to be his asshole self and run as third party.

He would have to be bought off in some way that would benefit him not necessarily America.

IMHO

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #862 on: March 15, 2016, 07:10:23 PM »
Trump winning Illinois is golden.... I wonder if they can send some more "protestors" to his other rallies?


Nothing tastes sweeter than liberal tears.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #863 on: March 15, 2016, 07:24:53 PM »
But he is getting trounced in polls against all Democrats.

That is the rest that counts.  The rest are footnotes for the memories.

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #864 on: March 15, 2016, 07:26:41 PM »
But he is getting trounced in polls against all Democrats.

That is the rest that counts.  The rest are footnotes for the memories.


There are a lot of people don't that don't take part in polls. Not at all an accurate reflection, but rather than argue, which is pointless.... we'll just see at the end of the year.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2016, 07:38:59 PM by DDF »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: March 16, 2016, 06:28:32 AM by Crafty_Dog »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Possible surprise from Trump
« Reply #867 on: March 16, 2016, 10:55:47 AM »
Third post-- this one is a surprise.

Pragmatism may yet prevail in America

 
Five months ago Jon Huntsman, a former Republican presidential contender, travelled to New Hampshire to meet a small group of politicians. He was joined by John Kasich, a current Republican presidential candidate; Chris Christie, until recently another Republican; Joe Lieberman, a former Democratic senator; and Martin O’Malley, a Democratic governor. Their goal was to endorse a bipartisan “national strategic agenda” to revive America and rebuild Washington’s credibility among both voters and global investors.

This meeting, organised by a group called No Labels, did not make waves after all. Other well-meaning bipartisan initiatives have emerged in recent years and failed. But this gathering had an interesting twist: Donald Trump participated and enthusiastically endorsed the group’s bipartisan and technocratic ideals. “I was surprised he came, but he was very positive,” Mr Huntsman observed at a meeting of business leaders in Philadelphia last week, adding that he is ready to work with Mr Trump if he becomes the Republican nominee — which he also thinks is quite likely.

Bond market investors around the world should take note. So should voters. After all, Mr Huntsman is hardly a crazy firebrand. Like Mr Kasich, he represents the more sober, pragmatic, internationally aware wing of the Republican party. The word “sensible” is often tossed around. The fact that he is not ruling out Mr Trump — and that Mr Trump attended the gathering — highlights the fact that there is a chance that Mr Trump may yet become a great deal more bipartisan and technocratic in his style than many people expect.

This may not seem obvious right now, least of all to people outside America. After all, the hallmarks of his campaign have been offensive verbal aggression and a lack of tangible policy ideas or serious advisers. Global investors who want to price the risk of a Trump policy plan, in other words, have almost no hard information right now on what he might actually do if he arrives in office.

People who have dealt with Mr Trump in a business or political context (and I have spoken with many recently) claim that his rhetoric is just a marketing campaign. He has to be loud and brash, the argument goes, to get through the Republican primary. But if he prevails, he could shift tack to widen his appeal.

One likely step is that he will seek to use his daughter, Ivanka, to attract women voters; or at least counter his sexist image. She might be a potent weapon: not only is she is smart, but she runs a website, WomenWhoWork, that promotes soft feminism.

Mr Trump is also likely to wrap himself in more pragmatic language — and to borrow all manner of ideas from places such as No Labels. This includes some surprisingly sensible ones. The platform argues, for example, that the next president should start his or her term by creating a national plan that focuses on four economic goals: creating 25m net new jobs in the next decade; securing social security for another 75 years; balancing the federal budget by 2030; and making America energy secure by 2024.

No Labels calls on the president to pick at least one goal in January 2017, before the State of the Union speech, and retreat to a place such as Camp David with a group of senior politicians of both parties to produce a plan. The idea is that focusing on long-term goals in this bipartisan fashion will help break the gridlock in Washington and create momentum to tackle the other goals.

“[We aim] to put an end to a governing process that simply drifts between divisive debates, political posturing and outright crises,” the manifesto declares. It is a vision not of ideology but of McKinsey-style C-suite governance — pragmatic, bipartisan dealmaking and problem-solving.

Could this work in practice? It is hard to imagine. But the No Labels group points out that presidents such as Ronald Reagan used to cut deals. And the main point is this: if somebody — Mr Trump or anyone else — were to borrow this language, it might just appeal to voters fed up with gridlock. It might even reassure financial markets, which are equally fed up with budget brinkmanship and government shutdowns.

Either way, the lesson for global investors is that they need to watch like hawks to see if Mr Trump’s language does shift in the coming weeks, and whether he can hire “sensible” people such as Mr Huntsman into his team. Future historians may view Mr Trump as a temporary sideshow or dangerous demagogue; but if Trump the opportunist wins power, he might yet be more pragmatic and technocratic than his recent predecessors. That would be irony indeed.

gillian.tett@ft.com
https://next.ft.com/content/e6e60e54-e616-11e5-bc31-138df2ae9ee6
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2016. All rights reserved.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Gotta say
« Reply #868 on: March 17, 2016, 06:59:41 AM »
I gotta say I love the Trump ad with Putin laughing at the EDC barking like a dog.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump killis it in NY
« Reply #871 on: March 18, 2016, 02:54:23 PM »
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/17/poll-donald-trump-hits-65-percent-in-new-york-more-than-50-percent-ahead-of-ted-cruz/

Fact check: Trump loses to Hillary in  NY by 19%
   - Source:  same poll

Trump's celebrity status and does not bring a single, additional state into play including hs home state.  Reminds me of how he mocked Rubio for trailing in his own home state.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Superb new ad from Trump
« Reply #872 on: March 19, 2016, 11:09:35 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
This man might be a Trump supporter; Bill Maher is not
« Reply #873 on: March 19, 2016, 05:15:49 PM »
https://www.facebook.com/david.markarian.5/videos/174355765940346/

I am not without familiarity with Mexican immigration laws and this guy is pretty much dead on.

===============================

https://www.facebook.com/Maher/videos/10153561732052297/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Donald Trump veresus the Index Funds
« Reply #874 on: March 20, 2016, 05:44:56 AM »
http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-youre-probably-better-investing-than-donald-trump/

NB: Worth noting is that by taking DT's puffed number for the baseline the numbers are affected greatly, but I suspect the underlying point remains.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Diamond and Silk let fly for Donald
« Reply #876 on: March 20, 2016, 04:11:56 PM »



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
WSJ: If only his knowledge matched his instincts
« Reply #879 on: March 22, 2016, 03:28:08 PM »
Second post

Brussels and Trump
If only his knowledge began to match his instincts.
By James Taranto
March 22, 2016 2:33 p.m. ET


Last night this columnist attended an off-the-record talk on international relations by a U.S. government official. Terrorism was among the topics discussed, and the talk was heavy on clichés. “Violent extremism” made an appearance, as did “ISIL.” We heard that the lack of economic opportunities was leaving young people vulnerable to “radicalization,” though no information was supplied about the identity of the radicalizers. We were warned of the dangers of “xenophobia.”

Oh, and there were a couple of supercilious remarks about “what the hell is going on in the U.S. presidential election.”

This morning we awoke to the news that terrorists—sorry, “violent extremists”—had murdered at least two dozen people in a series of bombings in Brussels. And it wasn’t long before Mr. What The Hell weighed in. “Do you all remember how beautiful and safe a place Brussels was,” tweeted Donald Trump. “Not anymore, it is from a different world! U.S. must be vigilant and smart!”

Soon enough, at least in America, Donald Trump had become the main topic of conversation. A comparison of his reaction with his rivals’ helps illuminate what the hell is going on with the U.S. presidential election.

The young-adult site Vox has a roundup. “I would close up our borders to people until we figure out what is going on. Look at Brussels, look at Paris, look at so many cities that were great cities,” Trump said on Fox News. Later, on MSNBC: “Waterboarding would be fine and if they could expand the laws, I would do a lot more than waterboarding. You have to get the information and you have to get it rapidly.”

Ted Cruz put out a statement titled “We Can No Longer Surrender to the Enemy Through Political Correctness.” In a tweet, he summed up the point: “We will name our enemy—radical Islamic terrorism. And we will defeat it.”

On the substance, Cruz is right to object to the administration’s obsession with euphemism. But his emphasis seems odd. Why assert that you’re going to name the enemy? Why not just name it? And isn’t defeating it the point? Cruz himself has stumbled into the PC trap of emphasizing semantics over substance.

As for John Kasich, his response was conventional. In a statement, he expressed “solidarity with the people of Belgium,” described terrorism as a threat to “our very way of life,” and said: “We must strengthen our alliances . . . and the international system that has been built on our common values since the end of the Second World War.” That last bit is an implicit rebuke of Trump, who yesterday, as the Washington Post reports, “questioned the United States’ continued involvement in NATO” in an interview with the Post.

Hillary Clinton’s statement was in a similar vein: She expressed “solidarity with our European allies” and concluded: “Today’s attacks will only strengthen our resolve to stand together as allies and defeat terrorism and radical jihadism around the world.” Bernie Sanders tweeted: “We offer our deepest condolences to the people of Brussels and stand with our European allies to offer any necessary assistance.”

The whole episode, it seems to us, is yet another testimony to Trump’s acute political instincts. He is alone among the candidates in addressing Americans’ anxiety that if our leaders are not careful, our country could end up like Western Europe, facing repeated attacks from a deadly internal enemy.

Foreign-policy experts don’t see it this way, and they have a point. Daniel Drezner, a professor at the Fletcher School, summed up the attitude with a tweet mocking Trump’s assertion that he’d close the border “until we figure out what’s going on.” Drezner: “Given the caliber of his national security team, that means he’d have to close the borders permanently.”

That’s a fair hit. Trump’s team, announced yesterday, is by all accounts an unimpressive group. And although some of the common criticisms of Trump strike us as overwrought, the one that does not is that he is sorely—perhaps almost completely—lacking in knowledge of policy substance. We’d feel a lot less uneasy about the prospect of a Trump presidency if we thought his instincts would be tempered by the advice of experts.

That said, even if expertise is a necessary condition for good foreign policy, it is certainly not a sufficient one. No one doubts that President Obama is surrounded by experts, yet they failed to dissuade him from withdrawing fully from Iraq. That contributed to the rise of ISIS, as did his abortive near-intervention in Syria in 2013. In the latter case, as the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg reports, he expressly rejected the expert consensus:

    Obama understands that the decision he made to step back from air strikes, and to allow the violation of a red line he himself had drawn to go unpunished, will be interrogated mercilessly by historians. But today that decision is a source of deep satisfaction for him.

    “I’m very proud of this moment,” he told me. “The overwhelming weight of conventional wisdom and the machinery of our national-security apparatus had gone fairly far. The perception was that my credibility was at stake, that America’s credibility was at stake. And so for me to press the pause button at that moment, I knew, would cost me politically. And the fact that I was able to pull back from the immediate pressures and think through in my own mind what was in America’s interest, not only with respect to Syria but also with respect to our democracy, was as tough a decision as I’ve made—and I believe ultimately it was the right decision to make.”

    This was the moment the president believes he finally broke with what he calls, derisively, the “Washington playbook.”

Note that the president does not express regret for damaging American credibility by issuing a serious threat that he ultimately decided not to carry out. He simply pooh-poohs the idea that credibility matters at all. One suspects that Trump, even without expert advice, would know better than to make this mistake. (True, he makes a lot of threats—but his bombastic style always leaves room for doubt that he means them.)

Here’s another example: No one doubts Mrs. Clinton surrounds herself with experts. One day last November, she did so literally, speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. During that speech, she asserted categorically: “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” Has any foreign-policy expert—this columnist does not qualify—pointed out that this statement is simply and obviously false?

When conventional politicians, relying on expert advice, respond to terrorism with platitudes and even outright lies, it’s no wonder that someone like Trump can thrive as the only candidate who senses and responds, however imperfectly, to legitimate public fears. That is what the hell is going on in the U.S. election. Trump is a formidable politician. Somebody with his instincts and a degree of intellectual seriousness would be a formidable leader.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump: Screw NATO, South Korea, etc; waterboarding
« Reply #880 on: March 23, 2016, 10:46:31 AM »
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/22/the-brussels-bombings-highlight-just-how-wrong-trump-is-about-nato/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=*Editors%20Picks

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/trump-responds-to-brussels-attack-by-insulting-the-city-of-belgium-and-calling-for-torture/

Interesting comments from Britain.
The only group in the UK that agrees with Trump on questioning the value of NATO is the very far left.
The only group in Britain that agrees with Trump on some other issues is the very far right.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of the recent Trump interviews is his lack of focus.  Rambling doesn't work on world security issues. 

Defending Israel or the west isn't a deal we can walk away from if we don't get it on our terms.

Very odd to back out of NATO instead of the UN. 


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Today's derangement from the Donald
« Reply #881 on: March 23, 2016, 09:14:27 PM »
http://thedailybanter.com/2016/03/trump-threatens-cruzs-wife/

Not sure why Ted is getting smeared here, but as for the Donald, , , the country is going to pay dearly for the dalliance of his deluded followers for their collective derangement whether he wins or loses.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Trump's foreign policy advisors , , who?!?
« Reply #882 on: March 23, 2016, 09:15:47 PM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #883 on: March 24, 2016, 07:01:39 AM »
I tried to find out who the people behind, 'Make America Awesome' PAC are.  Their website cannot be accessed.  My sense it is more of a Bill Crystal or National Review type group behind the picture and not Cruz.

Trump's shoot from the mouth response is I agree, one more reason he should not be President.

Crafty you are right about the *delusional* nature of his supporters.  I would still vote for him over any Democrat but I would have to hold my nose and close my eyes.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #884 on: March 24, 2016, 10:49:49 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ

HBO, Jon Stewart's successor(?).  This was from before Super Tuesday, still spot on, unfortunately.  No doubt he will be the keynote speaker at the Dem convention.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #885 on: March 24, 2016, 02:08:11 PM »
After watching this with me on TV my daughter had me buy the Make Donald Drumpf again hat. :lol: :lol: :evil:

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Why Isrealis are worried about Trump
« Reply #886 on: March 25, 2016, 11:22:25 AM »
Why Israelis Are Worried About Donald Trump
by Gregg Roman and Eylon Aslan-Levy
The Daily Caller
March 24, 2016
http://www.meforum.org/5921/israelis-worried-about-trump
 
 
Most Israelis are wary of Donald Trump.

Where does Donald Trump stand on the Arab-Israeli conflict?

As with so much else, the only consistent feature of Trump's remarks is their off-the-cuff and contradictory nature. Trump's foreign policy thinking might be truly as shambolic as the sentences in which it is expressed. Alternatively, there might indeed be method behind the madness. Yet whether or not one is charitable towards the controversial tycoon, all indications suggest that a Trump presidency would recklessly jeopardize the stalwart alliance between the United States and Israel, and thereby endanger the security of the Middle East's sole democracy.

On the one hand, Trump's comments appear virtually impossible to interpret into coherency. At his AIPAC speech, Trump announced that he would dismantle the Iran Deal, then five minutes later declared that he would enforce it. Sometimes he expresses a certain indifference to the Jewish state: similarly to Bernie Sanders, Trump has announced a policy of neutrality between Israelis and Palestinians, adding that he "want to go in with a clean slate" in lieu of pledging to defend the security needs of the US's most dependable regional ally. Disturbingly, Trump has stated that "a certain amount of surprise, unpredictability" would be key to his negotiating strategy, announcing a game plan involving yet more chaos into an increasingly chaotic Middle East.

At other times, Trump has blamed Israel for the enduring conflict, speculating, "I don't know that Israel has the commitment" to make peace, and effectively exonerating the Palestinian side when he said that peace depends on "whether or not Israel," rather than the rejectionist Palestinian leadership and jihadi forces, "wants to make the deal ... they may not be."

Trump has blamed Israel for its enduring conflict with Palestinians.

To be sure, Trump has made pro-Israel noises — and very loud ones this week at AIPAC's policy conference. "My daughter is married to a Jew who is an enthusiastic Israel supporter," Trump has said, which is about as compelling proof of pro-Israel affinities as "my best friend's a Mexican." With customary braggadocio, Trump has asserted that "the only one that's going to give Israel the kind of support it needs is Donald Trump." But there is little in his other utterances to commend this sweeping pledge. Just before ascending the AIPAC stage, Trump astonishingly hinted that he expected Israel to repay American military aid.

As an analysis of Trump's recent speeches has shown, he commits a "misstatement" every five minutes. How can a man so inclined to mistruths be trusted with the delicate business of diplomacy and global politics? And a man who has suggested that the US should withdraw from NATO, at that.

Those inclined to buy Trump's protestations that he is "currently [Israel's] biggest friend" will struggle to rationalize his ersatz record of public statements. Trump is a man of principles, to the extent that those principles are expediency and opportunism. On the campaign trail, he has demonstrated a remarkable ability to say or do whatever will maximize votes, then shamelessly flip-flop if need be. It is exceedingly difficult to decipher any discernible commitment from Trump to values or causes of any kind, other than his own brand. A President Trump would likely play just as recklessly with America's regional alliances as President Obama, further endangering the growing threats to the liberal world order America has fought so tirelessly to sustain just when it most needs rehabilitating.

Trump thinks he can engineer a diplomatic breakthrough between Israelis and Palestinians.

So much for Trump's seemingly anarchic record of public statements. Yet the real danger may lie in a method, the outlines of which one can begin to detect behind the madness.

Given the historic temptation for U.S. presidents to attempt to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict and Trump's self-perception as a master dealmaker, it appears that Trump is convinced that he can engineer a brilliant diplomatic breakthrough. Indeed, at AIPAC he was at pains to stress his authorship of a book on negotiations. But The Art of the Deal is a shoddy grounds for geopolitical chess-playing. His statements betray no understanding of the nuances of the fragile geopolitics, and every indication that he impatiently and impetuously believes that all that peace requires is that an American president rely on his business acumen to force a deal.

But as Senator Marco Rubio put it, the Arab-Israeli conflict is "not a real estate deal." It is replete with complexities that demand perseverance, trust-building and ingenuity — in short, traits that are difficult to imagine in a presidential candidate who had yet to appoint a foreign policy team until a few days before his March 21 AIPAC appearance.

The collision between Israel's sober realism and Trump's grandiose self-confidence is a recipe for unnecessary friction.

An impatient rush to achieve a final-status agreement without any attention to the underlying, historical and structural reasons underlying the impasse would likely explode spectacularly in Israel's face and risk further conflagration. Israel understands that repeating this "peace summit" strategy will not work without attending to the underlying causes of rejectionism and instability on the Palestinian side, and will resist the imposition of tried-and-failed methods. The collision between Israel's sober realism and Trump's grandiose confidence in his own abilities is a recipe for unnecessary friction between Jerusalem and Washington.

All of the other Republican candidates – and even Hillary Clinton to some extent – believe that the next president must reaffirm and repair the U.S.-Israel relationship. They recognize that Israelis are most willing to make sacrifices in pursuit of peace when they are most secure, while Israel's enemies are least willing to compromise when they see daylight between Washington and Jerusalem. Trump's apathy towards Israel, or else his hubristic belief in his own negotiating powers as a panacea, risks further damage to this irreplaceable transnational alliance.

The writing is on the wall. It is not too late for Republicans to heed it.

Gregg Roman is director of the Middle East Forum. Eylon Aslan-Levy is a British-Israeli writer and political commentator.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
POTH: Trump's foreign policy
« Reply #888 on: March 26, 2016, 11:31:56 AM »
This is the NY Times. 

I heard that he was also at WaPo a few days ago and did very poorly.  Can anyone lay their hands on that for us?
=====================

Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential front-runner, said that if elected, he might halt purchases of oil from Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies unless they commit ground troops to the fight against the Islamic State or “substantially reimburse” the United States for combating the militant group, which threatens their stability.

“If Saudi Arabia was without the cloak of American protection,” Mr. Trump said during a 100-minute interview on foreign policy, spread over two phone calls on Friday, “I don’t think it would be around.”

He also said he would be open to allowing Japan and South Korea to build their own nuclear arsenals rather than depend on the American nuclear umbrella for their protection against North Korea and China. If the United States “keeps on its path, its current path of weakness, they’re going to want to have that anyway, with or without me discussing it,” Mr. Trump said.

And he said he would be willing to withdraw United States forces from both Japan and South Korea if they did not substantially increase their contributions to the costs of housing and feeding those troops. “Not happily, but the answer is yes,” he said.

Mr. Trump also said he would seek to renegotiate many fundamental treaties with American allies, possibly including a 56-year-old security pact with Japan, which he described as one-sided.

In Mr. Trump’s worldview, the United States has become a diluted power, and the main mechanism by which he would re-establish its central role in the world is economic bargaining. He approached almost every current international conflict through the prism of a negotiation, even when he was imprecise about the strategic goals he sought. He again faulted the Obama administration’s handling of the negotiations with Iran last year — “It would have been so much better if they had walked away a few times,” he said — but offered only one new idea about how he would change its content: Ban Iran’s trade with North Korea.

Mr. Trump struck similar themes when he discussed the future of NATO, which he called “unfair, economically, to us,” and said he was open to an alternative organization focused on counterterrorism. He argued that the best way to halt China’s placement of military airfields and antiaircraft batteries on reclaimed islands in the South China Sea was to threaten its access to American markets.

“We have tremendous economic power over China,” he argued. “And that’s the power of trade.” He made no mention of Beijing’s capability for economic retaliation.

“We will not be ripped off
anymore. We’re going to be
friendly with everybody, but
we’re not going to be taken
advantage of by anybody.”
Donald J. Trump, whose view of the world is “America First.” Read the edited transcript or just the highlights.

Mr. Trump’s views, as he explained them, fit nowhere into the recent history of the Republican Party: He is not in the internationalist camp of the elder President George Bush, nor does he favor George W. Bush’s call to make it the mission of the United States to spread democracy around the world. He agreed with a suggestion that his ideas might best be summed up as “America First.”

“Not isolationist, but I am America First,” he said. “I like the expression.” He said he was willing to reconsider traditional American alliances if partners were not willing to pay, in cash or troop commitments, for the presence of American forces around the world. “We will not be ripped off anymore,” he said.

In the past week, the bombings in Brussels and an accelerated war against the Islamic State have shifted the focus of the campaign trail conversation back to questions of how the candidates would defend the United States and what kind of diplomacy they would pursue around the world.

Mr. Trump explained his thoughts in concrete and easily digestible terms, but they appeared to reflect little consideration for potential consequences around the globe. Much the same way he treats political rivals and interviewers, he personalized how he would engage foreign nations, suggesting his approach would depend partly on “how friendly they’ve been toward us,” not just on national interests or alliances.

At no point did he express any belief that American forces deployed on military bases around the world were by themselves valuable to the United States, though Republican and Democratic administrations have for decades argued that they are essential to deterring military adventurism, protecting commerce and gathering intelligence.

Like Richard M. Nixon, Mr. Trump emphasized the importance of “unpredictability” for an American president, arguing that the country’s traditions of democracy and openness had made its actions too easy for adversaries and allies alike to foresee.

“I wouldn’t want them to know what my real thinking is,” he said about how far he was willing to take the confrontation over the islands in the South China Sea, which are remote and uninhabited but extend China’s control over a major maritime thoroughfare. But, he added, “I would use trade, absolutely, as a bargaining chip.”

Asked when he thought American power had been at its peak, Mr. Trump reached back 116 years to the turn of the 20th century, the era of another unconventional Republican, Theodore Roosevelt, who ended up leaving the party. His favorite figures in American history, he said, include two generals, Douglas MacArthur and George S. Patton — though he insisted that, unlike MacArthur, he would not advocate the use of nuclear weapons except as a last resort. (He suggested that MacArthur had pressed during the Korean War to use atomic weapons against China as a means “to negotiate,” adding, “He played the nuclear card, but he didn’t use it.”)

“I wouldn’t want
them to know what
my real thinking is.”
Mr. Trump, who told us his thinking on foreign policy — up to a point. Read the edited transcript or just the highlights.

Mr. Trump denied that he had had trouble recruiting senior members of the foreign policy establishment to advise his campaign. “Many of them are tied up with contracts working for various networks,” he said, like Fox or CNN.

He disclosed the names of three advisers in addition to five he announced earlier in the week: retired Maj. Gen. Gary L. Harrell, Maj. Gen. Bert K. Mizusawa and retired Rear Adm. Charles R. Kubic. Asked about the briefings he receives and books he has read about foreign policy, he said his main source of information was newspapers, “including yours.”
Continue reading the main story
Presidential Election 2016
Here’s the latest news and analysis of the candidates and issues shaping the presidential race.

    Washington, Alaska and Hawaii Hold Democratic Nominating Contests
    MAR 26
    Highlights From Our Interview With Donald Trump on Foreign Policy
    MAR 26
    Transcript: Donald Trump Expounds on His Foreign Policy Views
    MAR 26
    Democrats See Gains as Donald Trump Targets a Wife
    MAR 25
    Ted Cruz Blames Donald Trump and ‘Henchmen’ for Tabloid Report of Affairs
    MAR 25

See More »
Related Coverage

    Highlights From Our Interview With Donald Trump on Foreign Policy MARCH 26, 2016
    Transcript: Donald Trump Expounds on His Foreign Policy Views MARCH 26, 2016
    Top Experts Confounded by Advisers to Donald Trump MARCH 22, 2016

From Our Advertisers

Recent Comments
ScottW 1 minute ago

You would think under the "Election 2016" banner there would be a mention of the 3 Dem. primaries today--Washington, Hawaii & Alaska. Oh,...
W.A. Spitzer 5 minutes ago

I wasn't aware that we purchased a significant amount of oil rom the Saudis
timoty 7 minutes ago

Mr. Trump lives in a strange fantasy world. We have now, and we have seen, enough of misguided strongmen in the world. These men don’t...

    See All Comments Write a comment

Until recently, Mr. Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements have largely come through slogans: “Take the oil,” “Build a wall” and ban Muslim immigrants, at least temporarily. But as he has pulled closer to capturing the nomination, he has been called on to elaborate.

Pressed about his call to “take the oil” controlled by the Islamic State in the Middle East, Mr. Trump acknowledged that this would require deploying ground troops, something he does not favor. “We should’ve taken it, and we would’ve had it,” he said, referring to the years in which the United States occupied Iraq. “Now we have to destroy the oil.”

Mr. Trump did not rule out spying on American allies, including foreign leaders like Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, whose cellphone was apparently a target of the National Security Agency. President Obama said that the United States would no longer target her phone but made no such commitments about the rest of Germany, or Europe.

“I’m not sure that I would want to be talking about that,” Mr. Trump said. “You understand what I mean by that.”

Mr. Trump was not impressed with Ms. Merkel’s handling of the migrant crisis, however: “Germany is being destroyed by Merkel’s naïveté, or worse,” he said. He suggested that Germany and the Gulf nations should pay for the “safe zones” he wants to set up in Syria for refugees, and for protecting them once built.

Throughout the two conversations, Mr. Trump painted a bleak picture of the United States as a diminished force in the world, an opinion he has held since the late 1980s, when he placed ads in The New York Times and other newspapers calling for Japan and Saudi Arabia to spend more money on their own defense.
First Draft Newsletter

Subscribe for updates on the 2016 presidential race, the White House and Congress, delivered to your inbox Monday - Friday.

Mr. Trump’s new threat to cut off oil purchases from the Saudis was part of a broader complaint about the United States’ Arab allies, which many in the Obama administration share: that they frequently look to the United States to police the Middle East, without putting their own troops at risk. “We defend everybody,” Mr. Trump said. “When in doubt, come to the United States. We’ll defend you. In some cases free of charge.”

But his rationale for abandoning the region was that “the reason we’re in the Middle East is for oil, and all of a sudden we’re finding out that there’s less reason to be there now.” He made no mention of the risks of withdrawal — that it would encourage Iran to dominate the Gulf, that the presence of American troops is part of Israel’s defense, and that American air and naval bases in the region are key collection points for intelligence and bases for drones and Special Operations forces.

Mr. Trump seemed less comfortable on some topics than others. He called the United States “obsolete” in terms of cyberweaponry, although the nation’s capabilities are generally considered on the cutting edge.

In the morning interview, asked if he would seek a two-state or a one-state solution in a peace accord between the Israelis and the Palestinians, he said: “I’m not saying anything. What I’m going to do is, you know, I specifically don’t want to address the issue because I would love to see if a deal could be made.”

But in the evening, saying he had been rushed earlier, Mr. Trump reverted to a position he outlined on Monday before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobbying group. “Basically, I support a two-state solution on Israel,” he said. “But the Palestinian Authority has to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.”

In his discussion of nuclear weapons — which he said he had learned about from an uncle, John G. Trump, who served on the faculty of M.I.T. and died in 1985 — Mr. Trump seemed fixated on the large nuclear stockpiles amassed in the Cold War. While he referred briefly to North Korean and Pakistani arsenals, he said nothing about a danger that is a cause of great consternation among international leaders: small nuclear weapons that could be fashioned by terrorists.

In criticizing the Iran nuclear deal, Mr. Trump expressed particular outrage at how the roughly $150 billion released to Iran was being spent. “Did you notice they’re buying from everybody but the United States?” he said.

Told that sanctions under United States law still prevent most American companies from doing business with Iran, Mr. Trump said: “So, how stupid is that? We give them the money and we now say, ‘Go buy Airbus instead of Boeing,’ right?”

But Mr. Trump, who has been pushed to demonstrate a basic command of international affairs, insisted that voters should not doubt his foreign policy fluency.“I do know my subject,” he said.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
The snake
« Reply #889 on: March 26, 2016, 05:26:56 PM »

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #890 on: March 27, 2016, 03:25:27 PM »
Nice to know that Mexicans seem to think that their money should be used to influence US politics. They are organizing money and voices of non US citizens in an effort to derail a US candidate.

Sorry the article is not in English, but the Spanish speakers here will get the just of it.

I have to say, I wonder what the reaction would be if Americans were organizing to influence which Mexican candidates would be successful. It's a fair question.

http://ljz.mx/2016/03/27/clubes-de-migrantes-realizan-campana-con-zacatecanos-para-evitar-que-voten-por-trump/

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #891 on: March 27, 2016, 03:28:28 PM »
Nice to know that Mexicans seem to think that their money should be used to influence US politics. They are organizing money and voices of non US citizens in an effort to derail a US candidate.

Sorry the article is not in English, but the Spanish speakers here will get the just of it.

I have to say, I wonder what the reaction would be if Americans were organizing to influence which Mexican candidates would be successful. It's a fair question.

http://ljz.mx/2016/03/27/clubes-de-migrantes-realizan-campana-con-zacatecanos-para-evitar-que-voten-por-trump/

It is a CRIME under Mexican law for foreigners to attempt to influence Mexican elections.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Let's use their laws: Mexico's Glass House
« Reply #892 on: March 27, 2016, 03:38:47 PM »
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2009/01/13/mexicos-glass-house-2/
J. Michael Waller
Mexico’s Glass House
mexico_southern_border
Articles | January 13, 2009 | Borders

     EmailPrint
Every country has the right to restrict the quality and quantity of foreign immigrants entering or living within its borders. If American policymakers are looking for legal models on which to base new laws restricting immigration and expelling foreign lawbreakers, they have a handy guide: the Mexican constitution.

Adopted in 1917, the constitution of the United Mexican States borrows heavily from American constitutional and legal principles. It combines those principles with a strong sense nationalism, cultural self-identity, paternalism, and state power. Mexico’s constitution contains many provisions to protect the country from foreigners, including foreigners legally resident in the country and even foreign-born people who have become naturalized Mexican citizens. The Mexican constitution segregates immigrants and naturalized citizens from native-born citizens by denying immigrants basic human rights that Mexican immigrants enjoy in the United States.

By making increasing demands that the U.S. not enforce its immigration laws and, indeed, that it liberalize them, Mexico is throwing stones within its own glass house. This paper, the first of a short series on Mexican immigration double standards, examines the Mexican constitution’s protections against immigrants, and concludes with some questions about U.S. policy.

 

Summary

In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:

Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.
Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.
Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.
Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.
Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.
 

The Mexican constitution: Unfriendly to immigrants

The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country’s political life. Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics.  Article 9 states, "only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country."  Article 33 is unambiguous: "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."

The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners. If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast. Article 27 states,

"Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereunto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country." (Emphasis added)
The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal ones, in the public sector. Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces."

The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized. Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:

"In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic."

An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.

Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95).

The president of Mexico, like the president of the United States, constitutionally must be a citizen by birth, but Article 82 of the Mexican constitution mandates that the president’s parents also be

Mexican-born citizens, thus according secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.

The Mexican constitution forbids immigrants and naturalized citizens to become members of the clergy. Article 130 says, "To practice the ministry of any denomination in the United Mexican States it is necessary to be a Mexican by birth."

The Mexican constitution singles out "undesirable aliens." Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country."

The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen’s arrests. flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities."  Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.

The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action."

 

Notional policy options

Mexico and the United States have much to learn from one another’s laws and practices on immigration and naturalization. A study of the immigration and citizenship portions of the Mexican constitution leads to a search for new policy options to find a fair and equitable solution to the immigration problem in the United States.

Two contrary options would require reciprocity, while doing the utmost to harmonize U.S.-Mexican relations:

1. Mexico should amend its constitution to guarantee immigrants to Mexico the same rights it demands the United States give to immigrants from Mexico; or
2. The United States should impose the same restrictions on Mexican immigrants that Mexico imposes on American immigrants.
These options are only notional, of course. They are intended only to help push the immigration debate in a more sensible direction. They simply illustrate the hypocrisy of the Mexican government’s current immigration demands on the United States – as well as the emptiness of most Democrat and Republican proposals for immigration reform.

Mexico certainly has every right to control who enters its borders, and to expel foreigners who break its laws. The Mexican constitution is designed to give the strongest protections possible to the country’s national security. Mexico’s internal immigration policy is Mexico’s business.

However, since Mexican political leaders from the ruling party and the opposition have been demanding that the United States ignore, alter or abolish its own immigration laws, they have opened their own internal affairs to American scrutiny.  The time has come to examine Mexico’s own glass house.

– – –

J. Michael Waller, Ph.D., is the Center for Security Policy’s Vice President for Information Operations.

 

[1] The official text of the Constitution of Mexico appears on the Website of the Chamber of Deputies, or lower house of Congress, of the United Mexican States: http://www.cddhcu.gob.mx/leyinfo/txt/1.txt. An authoritative English translation of the Constitution of Mexico, published by the Organization of American States, appears on the Website of Illinois State University: http://www.ilstu.edu/class/hist263/docs/1917const.html. Quotations in this document are from the OAS translation.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2016, 03:56:30 PM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #893 on: March 27, 2016, 03:55:52 PM »
GM, if you have a moment please post that in the Mexico threads and the Electoral thread.  TY.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #894 on: March 27, 2016, 04:10:53 PM »
GM, if you have a moment please post that in the Mexico threads and the Electoral thread.  TY.

Sorry, about to go to work.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

DDF

  • Guest
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #896 on: March 27, 2016, 08:39:56 PM »
Nice to know that Mexicans seem to think that their money should be used to influence US politics. They are organizing money and voices of non US citizens in an effort to derail a US candidate.

Sorry the article is not in English, but the Spanish speakers here will get the just of it.

I have to say, I wonder what the reaction would be if Americans were organizing to influence which Mexican candidates would be successful. It's a fair question.

http://ljz.mx/2016/03/27/clubes-de-migrantes-realizan-campana-con-zacatecanos-para-evitar-que-voten-por-trump/

It is a CRIME under Mexican law for foreigners to attempt to influence Mexican elections.

I am very aware of that, and you are absolutely correct... which is why I posted it. The hypocrisy is mind numbing. They'll flat out through you out of the country for even having a protest, much less influencing an election.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Ten Donald Trump lies
« Reply #898 on: March 28, 2016, 07:30:55 AM »
http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/24/10-things-trump-said-but-says-he-didnt/

Maybe he thinks we won't remember what he said, on camera.  I think he doesn't remember what he said, on camera.

Besides lying or forgetting, his problem is that he always has cameras on.  And tweets can't be untwittered.

Lying by people like HRC, Bill Clinton, Obama, now Trump creates a number of problems, such as lack of trust.  Even worse to me is that it makes it boring and a waste of time to listen carefully to what they say.  Why should we care what they say when they don't.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Massive deficits under Trump's tax plan?
« Reply #899 on: March 28, 2016, 07:52:47 AM »
http://www.weeklystandard.com/trumps-tax-plan-would-add-more-debt-than-obama/article/1038452

Yes, but they will be the biggest most beautiful deficits we have ever had.     :-(

Or were they just starting points in negotiations by the world's greatest deal maker?    :-(

Maybe he plans to make it up with his 45% tariffs...    :-(

Higher tax rates from Hillary or Bernie will collapse the economy, bring in lower revenues as well.    :-(

With most shelters and loopholes already out, lower rates mostly bring in lower revenues. 

Odd to have a deficit analysis without looking at the cause of deficits - spending.

Trump has endorsed spending restraint measures such as the Penny Plan.
http://www.onecentsolution.org/the-one-cent-solution/

Unfortunately his memory and commitment to promises made is lacking.

I would add - the Cruz plan is unworkable and unelectable.  Mentioned previously, I am waiting for the Paul Ryan plan.  The Republican House may be our last chance.  Needless to say, the Ryan plan is also unworkable if we lose the Senate and White House.