That Trump is the only candidate of either Party who wants to do anything but provide a path to residency, and ultimately amnesty, is not only most telling, but is sufficient for millions of Americans to support and share his belief in doing so. It is not the actual building of the wall (which remains entirely possible - given that America spends hundreds of millions to put and maintain a rover on Mars, trust me, a 2,000 mile wall on earth is entirely possible, despite even its sizable cost and scale) which has garnered his support, but that he unequivocally desires to permanently secure the border, instead. As far as Mexico paying for it - it's simple, he can withhold the $146M in US aide that they are standing in America's breadline to receive, and/or placing a draconian tariff on their exported goods will pay for it eventually. But I don't think he wants to build a wall (this is bombastic campaign-speak), and is just setting up the threat of building one, and on Mexico's dime, to get them to stop immigration from their side (which they've really never had an interest in doing), and to talk them into taking, process and receiving their own citizens, after being deported by the US.
Not poking GA here, but Trump is no more "dumb" than he is "racist" and "sexist" - but that's the three biggest insults that libs throw at anyone who doesn't agree with them. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. Never has and never will. They think it's going to work this time, too. At least right now, as we stand here today.
of course we could get Mexico to pay for it if we played hard ball enough. Mexico's economy is totally dependent on both American consumers and corporations and on the billions their former citizens send back to their country
... and is 3 times longer than what we need and built with limited resources (humans with hauling animals). I suspect we can build a shorter wall with today's technology in less time. In any event, it started with the first brick.
A President Trump could militarize the border and have it effectively secured in one day. And even if longer (as Float eloquently stated last week), it'd only be a matter of several days to a few weeks, at absolute tip-top most. Unquestionably, traffic across the border could be reduced by 90% in a day, in any event.
Just because he's successful doesn't mean he's necessarily smart. When I hear him speak I hear an abject moron who struggles to put together more than one or two coherent sentences.
If you think his speeches are a pure reflection of him then I don't know what to tell you. It's all an act.
For the last 30 years he's been putting on an act? At what point is it no longer an act? Please tune in around 4pm today when he speaks at the AIPAC.
The things he's said over the course of his campaign are not at all similar to what he's projected over the past 30 years.
He's also made some ridiculously dumb choices. I'm not saying he's borderline retarded or anything but I'm not willing to concede he's brilliant. He's an obsessively ambition person who is absolutely sure of himself, hand a guy like that a small fortune and you're probably going to have a success story.
Does criticizing Trump make one liberal? Does being liberal necessitate personally attacking Trump? Just thinking out loud here, Tenny. I find Trump much more palatable than Cruz. I've criticized Clinton here far more than Trump. Is Gahlee a liberal? I never got that impression before. There's some real circling of the wagons on Trump, the last few days.
I wouldn't consider myself a liberal, I really see fair points of view from both parties. There are things I like/hate about them both. So in that sense I'd say I'm probably closer to an independent than anything.
