Donald Trump has a teeny, tiny base

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

(Donald Trump terminated his nephew's family medical coverage a week after he challenged the will of their father, Fred Trump. "This was so shocking, so disappointing and so vindictive," said niece Lisa Trump, whose son, William, was born 18 months ago at Mount Sinai Medical Center with a rare neurological disorder that produces violent seizures, brain damage and medical bills topping $300,000.)

It wasn't like they couldn't afford their own health insurance. They are rich too.

" Mary is equally incensed. The 35-year-old Long Island graduate student said she, like her brother, can well afford her own medical insurance. "Given this family, it would be utterly naive to say it has nothing to do with money. But for both me and my brother, it has much more to do with that our father [Fred Jr.] be recognized," she said. "He existed, he lived, he was their oldest son. "And William is my father's grandson. He is as much a part of that family as anybody else. He desperately needs extra care.

I don't think you should look up things just to make people look bad whether it is true or not.

It's a sad story apparently. Trump's brother died an alcoholic at 43, and his father cut him out of his will over it. Their family side still got money, and were still rich, just not as much as everyone else because of the alcoholic father. So there was a dispute. You can see an article from the time here:

BY HEIDI EVANS NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Tuesday, December 19, 2000, 12:00 AM
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives...ew-ailing-baby-caught-middle-article-1.888562

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

The alcoholic father, which is a sad story, proves my point that you can come from a rich family, and waste it all away. That you have to earn wealth to grow it or keep it. If the communists would stop pretending that wealth grows on trees, and we should share it equally with all; and making up stories about how how rich people don't work and inheritances are always unfair --

Then Warnings about either being diligent in work and growing your inheritance, or being slothful, and wasting it away, would take hold. Less stories would exist about the sons of rich families, who, like Trump's brother, die an alcoholic.

Mocking obvious rational warnings about it, and just keep telling everyone money is automatic, 'it's unfair everyone doesn't have it' - helps cause problems like this and many others.

 

[TheCount]

He didn't just say visas.

FFS do at least a little bit of research on your own arguments.

https://www.paul.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/MDM15J02.pdf

(a) REGISTRATION.—The Secretary of Homeland Se-9 curity shall notify each alien admitted as a refugee under10 section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (811 U.S.C. 1157) or granted asylum under section 208 of such 2MDM15J02 S.L.C.1 Act (8 U.S.C. 1158)

(e) TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON REFUGEE ADMISSION. (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of State may not approve an application for refugee status under section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1157) and the Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve an application for asylum under section 208 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1158) to any national of a high-risk country.

Since the head of the FBI said that at least for Syria, there was no way to adequately screen, that in a whole lot of cases, that means no immigration from these countries.

That's not at all what it means. Read the bill.

 

[nikcers]

making up stories about how how rich people don't work and inheritances are always unfair --

Inheritances are fair, I don't disagree with you there. I brought that inheritance thing up because the economy is not fair. The 1% get socialism, the poor get socialism, and Trump has no incentive to fix a system that is rigged to benefit him and his family. Trump will never end the fed, he praised Obamas bail outs. This is the reason why Trump campaigns against us. Trump is old money, and you are full of shit if you tell me he earned his money through hard work and sacrifice when thats not how crony capitalism works.

 

[Bossobass]

George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and lied about not liying about it and he had wooden teeth, that bastard.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

Either Trump is lying or, Trump is lying.

It all hinges on what the definition of "is" is...

 

[jmdrake]

I don't think that is correct. My understanding is that his father gave him ONE million.

Regardless of how much he got, the fact is that he could have made more just sticking it into an index fund. And he got bailed out multiple times. I'm still waiting for this proof of his hi IQ.

Rand advocated stopping all immigration from countries who hate the U.S.. Trump wasn't as politically-correct.

That's not a correct assessment of Rand's proposal. It had nothing to do with whether or not a country hated us. Countries that are not Muslim and that are allies made Rand's list. Rand's limited proposal was to temporarily halt immigration from those countries until the visa system was fixed. Trumps proposal would ban Muslims coming from Canada or Great Britain or other countries that do not have a broken immigration system that isn't properly screening for potential terrorists. So no, they are not the same proposal in the slightest.

Here are the facts on Rand's proposal so that it won't continue to be misconstrued.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/12/03/rand-paul-bill-banning-refugees

The moratorium on accepting refugees from the "high-risk countries" listed in the bill would end once the Department of Homeland Security demonstrates compliance with six stipulations intended to weed out potential terrorists posing as refugees. Some of the requirements are clear, such as monitoring of all refugees while in the country, though the demand for "enhanced refugee security screening" is more vague.

My colleague Matt Welch wrote of Paul's intention to bring this bill to the Senate two weeks ago, quoting the senator as saying, "I think Paris should wake us to the fact that we can't let just anyone come to this country without background checks."

As expected, Paul's bill also will deny admission to citizens of any of the 38 countries who participate with the US in the Visa Waiver Program "until after 30 days of security assessments have been conducted on such alien" or unless said individuals are enrolled in the Global Entry trusted traveler program. This appears to be a reaction to the fact that most of the terrorists who committed last month's atrocities in Paris came from France and Belgium, two countries where a visa is not currently required to visit the US.

Compare that to Trump's silly proposal to "ban all Muslims" until we find out "what the problem is." That's nebulous garbage. How do you even know who's Muslim and who isn't? Couldn't a terrorist simply say "I'm a Christian" and get in? And what about terrorists who simply aren't Muslim? It's not that Trump's plan isn't "politically correct." It's simply retarded.

 

[jmdrake]

He didn't just say visas.



Since the head of the FBI said that at least for Syria, there was no way to adequately screen, that in a whole lot of cases, that means no immigration from these countries.

LibertyEagle, please explain to the rest of us why you don't see the difference between temporarily barring immigration from a place like Somalia until the screening process for places like that can be fixed and barring immigration of Muslims from Canada or Australia or any other place on the planet, despite the fact that there's little to no risk of admitting them and despite the fact that nobody is stating any concern about the vetting process for Canadian or Australian immigrants.

 

[Bossobass]

LibertyEagle, please explain to the rest of us why you don't see the difference between temporarily barring immigration from a place like Somalia until the screening process for places like that can be fixed and barring immigration of Muslims from Canada or Australia or any other place on the planet, despite the fact that there's little to no risk of admitting them and despite the fact that nobody is stating any concern about the vetting process for Canadian or Australian immigrants.

What's to explain? There is no difference. You're for it if your guy does it and against it if your hater target does it? Explaining your opinion of imagined differences is irrelevant.

 

[jmdrake]

What's to explain? There is no difference. You're for it if your guy does it and against it if your hater target does it? Explaining your opinion of imagined differences is irrelevant.

Rand Paul is for banning Muslims from Canada? If that's your position please provide a reference. If that's not your position then please withdraw your statement as it does not stand up to the light of truth.

 

[Bossobass]

Rand Paul is for banning Muslims from Canada? If that's your position please provide a reference. If that's not your position then please withdraw your statement as it does not stand up to the light of truth.

There is no difference in the 2 examples you cited, so it's illogical to ask LE to provide any. And, don't make any silly requests regarding posts I make and how you imagine they might relate to your version of truth.

 

[jmdrake]

There is no difference in the 2 examples you cited, so it's illogical to ask LE to provide any. And, don't make any silly requests regarding posts I make and how you imagine they might relate to your version of truth.

Please explain how banning Muslims from any country on earth is the same as banning people coming from specific countries with a broken immigration system whether those people are Muslim or not. You can't simply keep saying to things that are clearly different are somehow the same and expect to be taken seriously.

 

[Bossobass]

You're a smart guy, you figure it out. I'm sure you will, eventually.

 

[jmdrake]

You're a smart guy, you figure it out. I'm sure you will, eventually.

I have figured it out. Under Rand Paul's plan a Muslim from Canada can come to the United States without any problem. Under Trumps plan such a Muslim cannot come in. I guess I'm wondering why you are having a hard time understanding this obvious truth? Or is the problem with admitting rather than understanding this obvious truth?

 

[LibertyEagle]

I think you are splitting hairs, Drake.

 

[nikcers]

I think you are splitting hairs, Drake.

Sen. Rand Paul says that he agrees with Donald Trump that there should be stricter scrutiny on people wishing to enter the U.S. However, in an interview with Yahoo Global News Anchor Katie Couric, Paul (R-KY) said there should not be a "religious test" to enter.

 

[TheCount]

There is no difference in the 2 examples you cited, so it's illogical to ask LE to provide any. And, don't make any silly requests regarding posts I make and how you imagine they might relate to your version of truth.

Having different visa policies based on national origin is entirely different than having immigration policies based upon the religious preference of the person. In Syria and Iraq, for example, we know that ISIS has captured blank passport stock. That makes it virtually impossible to verify identity or conduct any kind of background investigation. Obviously, this requires an elaborate visa approval process when compared to countries whose passports we can trust.

The issue with the visa waiver program is that the list of visa waiver countries is largely based upon alliances. We use it as a reward we give to some countries and withhold from others arbitrarily. It's not at all an indicator that citizens of these countries are safe or reliable.