Thread: Trump Axes Immigration Speech As Rumors Swirl of Coming Deportation Flip-Flop

Originally Posted by pkskyali

MW, I have to say that I do question your integrity. I don't really believe that you believe what you say about Trump. You are just trying to demoralize those who support Trump for the things he says he stands for. Your strategy seems to be if you can't shut Trump up, you can at least confuse and confound those who support him.

You are not the only one. joe s and JohnDoe2 are another.

But it's all good. These are all symptoms and characteristic of the broad problems at hand and it helps to learn to confront these problems civilly in forums such as this.

Trump is struggling with ways to bring his force to the public in the best possible way. It is simply slander to suggest that he is being "squishy" about anything. Trump is anything but squishy.

Victorious or not, Trump has already struck more sound blows against illegal immigration than anyone else in the public sphere, in government or not.

His appeals to first African American communities and then "Latino" communities is pure genius.

Exactly what is it about my integrity that you question? Are you questioning my desire for stronger border security, an end to illegal immigration, reduced immigration, and strong support for the deportation of every single illegal alien in our country? My position on these issues are firm. If you question that please don't hesitate to search my posts dating all the way back to 2006.

I didn't create this sudden controversy, Trump did with is new approach io being gentler and softer on illegal aliens. While a couple folks on here may not be concerned, some of us are very concerned at what we're hearing. Please don't hold my accountable for what Trump says or how the media reports it.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Don't shoot the messenger.

That's not what I'm doing and you know it. This is exactly what I am talking about.

Originally Posted by MW

Exactly what is it about my integrity that you question? Are you questioning my desire for stronger border security, an end to illegal immigration, reduced immigration, and strong support for the deportation of every single illegal alien in our country? My position on these issues are firm. If you question that please don't hesitate to search my posts dating all the way back to 2006.

I didn't create this sudden controversy, Trump did with is new approach io being gentler and softer on illegal aliens. While a couple folks on here may not be concerned, some of us are very concerned at what we're hearing. Please don't hold my accountable for what Trump says or how the media reports it.

Your performance is so shallow and vain that it is laughable. Nobody is fooled.

If you, JohnDoe2 and all the rest of the posing critics of Trump are so worried about Trump softening on illegal immigration, what do you propose as a solution? Resurrect Cruz as a candidate? Get another candidate? You are just pretending to worry to make him to make him look like he is doing something that he is not doing. Why not express encouragement for him to be more aggressive? You never supported Trump at all in the first place and it is his aggressive stand on illegal immigration and his threats to do something about it, that's what is worrying you.

The NeverTrump'ers appear to have two different strategies at the same time. Swear to never vote for him and at the same time pretend to support and undermine his stance by posing it as something that it isn't.

They still haven't got over the crash and burn of the Cruz nomination.

To be more clear:

Don't shoot ME because you don't like what MD said or did.

THANKS

Well, JD2, when you "like" what MW said then that means you agree with it. Did you "like" MW's comment? I think you did. That's why you get included in comments. People notice these things.

pkskyaliwrote:

joe s, constantly nitpicking at somebody's post for no good reason is apoor substitute for voicing your own opinion, if you have one. And at thispoint it is remarkably hard to tell if you have an opinion.

Certainly Ihope you did not think I would let such a bogus statement go unanswered. Having been away for a couple of days availedme the opportunity to step away and reflect on your baseless assertions thatare unfounded in a single ounce of truth.
All I havefound here is someone (pkskyali) trying to be condescendingly cute with smartaleck comments, defending someone who is a lightning rod on this forum and has probablynot even read through the entire thread. Lastly, you make a statement that is a complete falsehood about calling other posters names.
You even goas far as trying to belittle someone (joe s) because you don’t like their position andfoolishly interpret a disagreement volley for nitpicking. You pretend to know what you are talkingabout so convincingly, but there is not one ounce of truth behind any of yourassertions, but I am sure you already know that. It is the essence of your post.
“Constantly nitpicking”, I am so sorry that you don’t likewhen people disagree with Judy and put their opinions out. It is clearly not a substitute for voicing myown opinion, it is my opinion. Anyone,who has been on this forum, could easily establish that I do have one. The only thing that would be “remarkably hardto tell” is if you did not take the time to read the entire thread or any of myposts for that matter. You could have done this without beingcondescendingly cute, belittling or acting like a smart aleck, but you chose tobe all three instead.
Judy and I will vote for the same candidate regardless ofwhat transpires. She and I will alsoagree and disagree on many topics to come. If I posted over 100 times a day with strong opinions and little tolerancefrom those that disagreed with me, I would expect rounds and rounds of in yourwords, “nitpicking” and be ok with it. That is what this is all about, so don’t try and squash the voices youdisagree with by unfairly mischaracterizing the posts and taking the time totry and belittle someone because you don’t like their thoughts or you feel theyare picking on your friend.

Pkskyali wrote:

Ithink it is perfectly acceptable to call public figures names.

Public figures arenot here to defend themselves and that is what we do here sometimes. When we like a public figure and they receiveunfair attacks, it is perfectly acceptable to defend them in ways that are fitto conform to the rules of the forum. Iwas deeply offended by her use of the terms Bimbo and Jack-ass. She (KellyAnne) is in my opinion neither andit opens the name caller to a completely new attack which I passed on. Obviously others were offended by the use ofthe word bimbo and took the time to post its definition and liabilities. Name calling always opens itself up tosomething more and makes the position of the caller less. You should take the time to read the earlierpost on the definition of name calling and see how it devalues someone’smessage or argument.
As far as callingother posters here names, that is a false accusation that you should retract. That is a complete falsehood and you haveused the question to stir up controversy where none existed. What is truly ironic is that Chris Christiehad everything to do with the position change and regardless, the attack onKellyAnne Conway wasn’t even deserved. We all make mistakes and have to move on.



Pkskyali wrote:

Wherewe should draw the line here is calling other posters names. There is a hugedifference.

You providethat information and I will retract from calling your statement a lie.

I didn't call anyone any names. I simply asked the poster a question ofwhich name she preferred. That was clearly implied and both names that sheused and suggested are inappropriate. She referred to KellyAnne originally as abimbo and then added jackass.
The one groupTrump needs more support of is women. Judyposts frequently on this forum and that kind of language might turn off peoplewho respect and read her posts, not to mention devaluing them as wellespecially when the attack is unwarranted. Why name call an accomplished woman when you can be moreeffective if you lay out an argument that would disagree with her positionor policy? She had every right to call her names and attack her and I hadevery right to defend or push back. Thatis the beauty of the forum.
You can feel,say or do whatever you want. My responseto you is only to correct the record. I am sure Judy appreciates yoursupport. If you were looking for me toback off of her, all you needed to do was ask. Your comments suggested otherwise.
For someone (pkskyali)who was so concerned about something that was never said, you said quite a bitthat mirrored the substance of what you were so concerned about.
I must havethe last laugh though, because Conway has been instrumental in Trumpsreinvigorated campaign, slight northward movement in the polls and the factthat Chris Christie had everything to do with this thread and wasn’t even mentioneduntil now or attacked.

New Trump Campaign Manager Paid By Mark Zuckerberg Group To Flack For Amnesty

August18, 2016 By Bre Payton

Before she was Donald Trump’s campaign manager, pollster Kellyanne Conway wrote a memo in favor of a bill to provide illegal immigrants a legal pathway to citizenship.

The 2014 memo she co-authored for FWD.us, a pro-immigration amnesty organization funded by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, said voters broadly supported the idea of an immigration reform bill, CNN reports.

The bill, which would have provided a pathway to citizenship for 11 million people inside the United States illegally, differs drastically from Trump’s immigration policies — which includes deporting anyone who immigrated illegally and building a wall along the border dividing the United States and Mexico.

“[Passing the bill] solves a serious problem in a way that Americans, including Hispanics, overwhelmingly support — and improves Republicans’ standing with swing voters now, in the next presidential election, and for years to come,” the memo stated.

The memo, which 15 Republican pollsters signed, said that voters, by a 2 to 1 margin, did not think the immigration reform bill provided amnesty to illegal immigrants — which differs sharply from what Trump has said about the bill.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/18/...k-for-amnesty/

If existing laws are enforced, no social services, no jobs etc, a lot will go on their own - can see a deportation force for the criminals to be removed swiftly though.....
Trump campaign chief: Deportation force unlikely

By Gabby Morrongiello 8/28/16 11:03 AM
Donald Trump plans to re-evaluate his position on mass deportation to determine a "fair and humane way" to deal with illegal immigrants living in the U.S., the Republican presidential nominee's campaign manager said Sunday.

"What he has said now is that he will look at that," Kellyanne Conway told Fox News' Chris Wallace. "We need to have a fair and humane way of addressing the fact that ... 11 million, or so it's estimated, illegal immigrants live among us."

Despite Trump's previous calls for the development of a deportation force that would return illegal immigrants to their countries of origin, Conway said he is likely change his position to relying on existing law enforcement agencies to handle deportations.

"The deportation force — I'd like to address that — he hasn't mentioned that since last November, [and] I think in a few of the debates," she added.

"The softening is more approach than policy," she told Wallace, noting that Trump will not propose a pathway to citizenship for those living in the country illegally. "What he has said is no legalization and no amnesty."

She continued, "He also said this week … if you go back to your home country and if you'd like to come back to the United States as an immigrant, you need to apply through the many different channels that allow people to apply for citizenship or entry into the United States legally."

Conway's remarks come on the heels of increasing questions about the billionaire's position on immigration, an issue that has been at the core of his campaign since he launched his White House bid last June.

"There could certainly be a softening, because we're not looking to hurt people," Trump told Fox News' Sean Hannity during a town hall last week.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tr...rticle/2600372

She is a negative force and does him no good at all. He really really needs to get rid of her or at least keep her off the television.

Originally Posted by artist

New Trump Campaign Manager Paid By Mark Zuckerberg Group To Flack For Amnesty

August18, 2016 By Bre Payton

Before she was Donald Trump’s campaign manager, pollster Kellyanne Conway wrote a memo in favor of a bill to provide illegal immigrants a legal pathway to citizenship.

The 2014 memo she co-authored for FWD.us, a pro-immigration amnesty organization funded by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, said voters broadly supported the idea of an immigration reform bill, CNN reports.

The bill, which would have provided a pathway to citizenship for 11 million people inside the United States illegally, differs drastically from Trump’s immigration policies — which includes deporting anyone who immigrated illegally and building a wall along the border dividing the United States and Mexico.

“[Passing the bill] solves a serious problem in a way that Americans, including Hispanics, overwhelmingly support — and improves Republicans’ standing with swing voters now, in the next presidential election, and for years to come,” the memo stated.

The memo, which 15 Republican pollsters signed, said that voters, by a 2 to 1 margin, did not think the immigration reform bill provided amnesty to illegal immigrants — which differs sharply from what Trump has said about the bill.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/18/...k-for-amnesty/

Thank you for posting this! It is clear that Kellyanne Conway

needs to be fired from the Trump campaign immediately!

W

Yes, she does, W.