Love him or hate him. Agree or disagree. There is no question that Donald Trump took the bull by the horns today and moved the discussion to where he wants it to be. The meeting with the Mexican President was a good moment for him. First, it was immediately declared a disaster before it even happened, and it turned out to be pretty cordial. He beat expectation. But more than anything else, he looked legitimate, if not flat out Presidential. Anyone who saw him on the stage (or just sees a picture or video) will at least at some level see him as the "possible" President. Because quite frankly that was how he was being treated by President Nieto. As a method of subconscious persuasion, this was priceless. He couldn't buy enough television ads to get this same exposure.
The speech was substantive. There were ten points (which provides the talking points). He seemed to stay on point. The moment with the angel moms was emotional. But if there was something that stood out to me, it was how he subtly moved his position ever so slightly, without really making it seem that way. The focus was on the criminal element, border security, and in some semantic wiggle room when it comes to legalization. As he stated (and I agree) if you cross the border illegally, then you should not be eligible for citizenship. But the key word is citizenship. He could still take a step back and allow for another type of permanent residency that does not involve citizenship. In fact, I believe that is eventually where he is heading (and where I would go as well). But that's not what most people will have heard.
Bottom line; If you hate Donald Trump and want to punch him in the face, then you probably still hate Donald Trump and still want to punch him in the face even harder. If you like Donald Trump and want him to become your President. Today reinforced it. It may have even teased you a little as to how it would be if he was the President. For those in between or undecided, I would offer that they probably saw Trump for the first time as looking the part. If nothing else, Trump gains from that. As much as the openly hostile to Trump pundits may try to put a negative spin on this, it's a net gain. That's just a fact.
Btw... if you disagree that this was Trump's day... I ask you this: The other lady running for President gave a big speech on American exceptionalism. How do you think that went for her?
19 comments:
Before we give him a thumbs up, let's wait for a few days and see what the polling numbers say.
I hope we are better than Trump.
I think you will be waiting in vain.
Trump had a very good day and Clinton did nothing to stop the bleeding.
Even Krauthhammer (who has been a critic from the start) said it was his best day of the campaign. The weekly standard (another site heavy in the #nevertrump) conceded his trip to Mexico paid off.
Look Roger, Trump could cure cancer, end world hunger, and usher in world peace... and MSNBC, Politico, WashingtonPost and the like would still be critical.
I find it "amazing" that anyone disagrees with the concept that you deport illegals who have committed crimes, or deal with those who have overstayed their Visas. How do you defend some of these policies:
- letting criminals without citizenship out of jail and back into society
- just ignoring the law on Visa stays
- Hiring people to secure the border, then when they catch someone, they let them go into the U.S. Why bother having security? It would be like having a bouncer ID someone. See they are not 21 and let them in the bar anyways.
These things make absolutely no sense.
Interesting that your ECV report shows that Clinton only needs 8 additional ECV to win.
Trump needs 116.
I saw that. People are going home.
But, that's not going to win the ECV.
His base is not sufficient to win.
He made a blanket statement. We refuse to deport thousands who would face brutal treatment on issues like women who oppose the fundamentalist Islamic beliefs. Would you ignore that?
How do you defend some of these policies:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
it's not hard at all to defend those policies as long as you understand the liberal end game -
a permanent democrat majority by any means necessary.
illegal immigrants = reliable democrat votes. period. and those who would promote open borders and a never ending swarm of illegals crossing the border are the same folks who reside in gated enclaves, guarded by armed security, and are never directly exposed to the consequences of their idiotic policies.
the ruling elite continue to thrive while the middle class gets screwed... again by liberalism.
Trump Goes to Lousiana and the people on the ground thank him and take from the Semi-trucks that he brought with him with food, water and other daily needs.
Hillary,,, well she was partying with the top 1 % percent, she just could not be bothered....... so in the weeks since that, why has she still not gone there?
Trump goes to Mexico, meets with their President and all the ALT-Left can do is throw a hissy sissy fit.
Trump goes to the AZ tells the truth on how the no educated, poor, illegals are damaging the ranches , killing live stock and suing the US Ranchers/Famers,,,,,, and all the ALT-Leftist can do is throw a hissy fit.
You know that on private land the US Govt demand that the Ranchers and farmers maintain water stations for the illegals?
IF you did not know that fact , then you know nothing of the illegals that are raping the lands and stealing wealth for the farmers/ranchers of the USA.
An Arizona Rancher (Roger Barnett, 64) who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.
This is not the only case that has been filed by the ALT-Leftist against Legal land owning American Citizens.
The right to bear arms, the right to secure our land and defend ourselves against the illegals is not a right under O'Hillary .
on issues like women who oppose the fundamentalist Islamic beliefs." HB
Hillary supports and receives money from those Nations, yet, HB, you look and more importantly support HER with your vote.
Huma is that kind of Islamic, how is it you do not know that fact?
He made a blanket statement. We refuse to deport thousands who would face brutal treatment on issues like women who oppose the fundamentalist Islamic beliefs. Would you ignore that?
In the Middle East, he talked about creating safe zones, which can provide safety to eight potential refugees for the cost of bringing one of those refugees here.
We can do so without the additional cost of providing free services here in the United States.
If your view was about the humanitarian issues that you describe, then you should prefer a plan that keeps the most vulnerable people safe, rather than the plan that brings the most people here.
When you make the argument that you would rather bring 65,000 people here, rather than protect a half million there. It's transparent that your goals are not about protecting people who are vulnerable. Your very transparent goal is to bring more refugees here... hoping to make them citizens who will vote Democrat (apparently to replace all of the current voters the Party has been losing).
Clinton's Syria Public Works Programee
Remember how O'Hillary Saved Detroit, yeah, YUGE lie, but what do you expect from the ALT-Leftist. Well , Clinton has a new re-re-Saving of Detroit, put 10,000 Syria's to work on the public dime.
Clinton just said to HELL with those young black men and woman that need jobs in Detroit.
That message is being heard, even IF The Federal Witness Protection Program has Hillary is a NEW Safe House.
Trump's speech was about as hard line as it could be. No amnesty. Illegals must LEAVE before they can then come back an apply for citizenship.
Must leave = be deported.
Eleven million or whatever deportations. Don't hold your breath.
________
"We didn't discuss paying for the wall."
--Trump
"Yes we did. Right at the first I told him Mexico would never pay for the wall."
--Nieto
Funny, isn't it James... that he never disputed this during the Press Conference, in spite of having chances to do so.
http://time.com/4475102/donald-trump-enrique-pena-nieto-transcript/
You won't actually see that statement (you quoted) in the Press conference... even though the cost (and who would pay) was directly asked of the two of them. Trump said it wasn't discussed, and Nieto didn't disagree.
I understand, however, why he might feel pressure later (after receiving criticism from Mexican press for being overshadowed by Trump) - to say something, anything.
We don't even know at this point James, whether or not Nieto is telling the truth, or trying to save face with a little white lie.
It wasn't "discussed." Nieto just flat out told him at the outset it wasn't going to happen. Trump himself later lamely claimed it wasn't the right time to discuss it.
We don't even know at this point James, whether or not Nieto is telling the truth, or trying to save face with a little white lie.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
nieto tweeted after the fact - in spanish - that mexico will not pay for the wall.
the irony is that if we can stop the tsunami of illegals flowing across the border, then the loss of illegals revenue flowing BACK across the border TO mexico WILL pay for the wall.
many times over.
so let the children in the media and on the left have their fun.
It wasn't "discussed." Nieto just flat out told him at the outset it wasn't going to happen.
I think you are missing the point James.
If Nieto "just flat out told him" - why did he not say that at the press conference?
They were asked if the subject of the wall (and who would pay) came up. Both gave a response on the spot. Neither suggested it was discussed and Nieto did not offer that he told Trump that Mexico wouldn't pay for it.
Nieto's "reported" statement apparently must have come later, after the Press conference to a different crowd of people. Because he never stated anything like that at the Press conference.
You can read the transcript Jame. No mention of the wall by Nieto.
So my question to you, James... is if that is what Nieto told Trump, then why did he not say so when specifically asked by the Press? Why would he wait till Trump and the rest of the press corps were gone, to make the declaration?
Nieto was doing damage control with his own people who thought he wasn't tough enough on Trump.
you're putting james in a bind by not letting him post a dozen cut n pastes as a diversion from answering what he's obviously lying about.
you ogre
Post a Comment