Merry Christmas from Donald Trump

[Unregistered]

Perhaps, but should they be pushed ahead in line regarding those that are waiting the old fashion way ? Could there perhaps be just as many hard working people in that line ?
Why is it that such a small number of illegals are getting all the air time ? Could it just be that it will be symbolic to the Democrats , that it is merely something to help heal their wounds ? Show face to their base ?

Another poster was claiming Obama as the " Deporter in Chief " . It may be true, but as we all know, illegals have been known to re-enter the country illegally over and over again. How many times are they counted as " deportees " ? And are their subtractions for those who sneak back in 5 times ?Of course not.

These children were brought over the border by their parents. They had no voice in their coming and staying. They have lived their lives here as any other American kid. Now they must be punished because their parents violated our immigration laws?

I say YES, this group of people gets moved to the front of the line and gets resolved. They earned it. They deserve it.

[Unregistered]

Agreed. So, when it comes time to vote...vote. Don't whine about not falling in-line with some mythical designation of being "presidential" when you can't even define it.

It's like trying to define Porn. Go ahead, give me a consensus definition of what porn is and what it is not.

So the same goes for defining "Presidential".


And like Porn, I can offer a very famous explanation.....


I may not be able to define what Presidential means, but I know it when he is and is not acting Presidential.



And this man has no idea of what acting Presidential means.

[Unregistered]

These children were brought over the border by their parents. They had no voice in their coming and staying. They have lived their lives here as any other American kid. Now they must be punished because their parents violated our immigration laws?

I say YES, this group of people gets moved to the front of the line and gets resolved. They earned it. They deserve it.

They "deserve" it?

So, those who I know who went through an extremely costly and difficult process to bring a baby in, legally, should continue to be pushed in the back? Those who came here 20+ years ago and were put through the ringer to become citizens should be pushed to the back?

[Unregistered]

These children were brought over the border by their parents. They had no voice in their coming and staying. They have lived their lives here as any other American kid. Now they must be punished because their parents violated our immigration laws?

I say YES, this group of people gets moved to the front of the line and gets resolved. They earned it. They deserve it.

Then aren't their parents responsible for their well being and future ? Why should that responsibility now become the responsibility of the tax paying parents of American children that are citizens ? Did their parents not know that they were breaking the law ,and what the ramifications would be ?

They have not lived their lives here like any other American kid. There have been numerous accommodations to them and many other illegals. Drivers Licenses , in state tuition and others which have encouraged , not discouraged others from taking the same route.

They are not being punished. They are simply being restored to the category of placement according to their original circumstances.

This started because Congress did not pass Laws to settle the issue. Obama said, okay, I'll use my pen and kick the can down the road. Now their time is up, and the vitriol and blame is on trump, he has to decide , unless Congress can, what to do with two cans kicked down the road. One by the DACA parents, and one by Obama.

This is why we need comprehensive reform. We need to establish once and for all what it is the country wants and needs regarding immigrants. It is NOT necessary to entertain the whims , plight and desires of those who come here illegally , as there are more than enough on the line to get accepted legally. And that line is vetted better, has more chances of diversity , and at least you have to wait your turn.

How many Americans in their every day lives embrace and welcome line jumpers ? I'm here now, so you let me step in front. How's that work at the Airports, ER's , theatres , anywhere ?

[Unregistered]

It's like trying to define Porn. Go ahead, give me a consensus definition of what porn is and what it is not.

So the same goes for defining "Presidential".


And like Porn, I can offer a very famous explanation.....


I may not be able to define what Presidential means, but I know it when he is and is not acting Presidential.



And this man has no idea of what acting Presidential means.

I'm not railing against porn. You are railing against something you can't even explain what it is.

You have made a determination that someone doesn't meet a standard. A standard which cannot be defined. A standard that most likely not everyone agrees with because nobody knows what it is. However, a determination has been made, by yourself, that he doesn't meet it.

What if I said "acting presidential" wasn't acting 'hood? Would that be an acceptable standard? What if I said we can't say "y'all", because it isn't a word? What if I said that "acting presidential" meant that he only be seen in a shirt and tie? They only buy American? The love baseball? Can't wear high-tops? Have Twitter? Doesn't have Twitter? Knows all the secret handshakes? Is male?

Seriously. It appears you are basing your determination on what you have seen in the past administrations as a baseline. But, with a nation of so many different personalities and experiences, how can there be just one "presidential"?

[Unregistered]

They "deserve" it?

So, those who I know who went through an extremely costly and difficult process to bring a baby in, legally, should continue to be pushed in the back? Those who came here 20+ years ago and were put through the ringer to become citizens should be pushed to the back?

No one is pushing anyone to the back of the line. DACA is a separate initiative that has nothing to do with other legal paths to citizenship. To participate in DACA you have to register, be working or in school. They are already vetted as good citizens and if they screw up they're out.

Yes legal immigration is lengthy and costly and a pain in the azz but it doesnt take 20 years. DT wants to reduce legal immigration also. Don't you want it that way?

[Unregistered]

No one is pushing anyone to the back of the line. DACA is a separate initiative that has nothing to do with other legal paths to citizenship. To participate in DACA you have to register, be working or in school. They are already vetted as good citizens and if they screw up they're out.

Yes legal immigration is lengthy and costly and a pain in the azz but it doesnt take 20 years. DT wants to reduce legal immigration also. Don't you want it that way?

Make up your mind

These children were brought over the border by their parents. They had no voice in their coming and staying. They have lived their lives here as any other American kid. Now they must be punished because their parents violated our immigration laws?

I say YES, this group of people gets moved to the front of the line and gets resolved. They earned it. They deserve it.

[Unregistered]

I'm not railing against porn. You are railing against something you can't even explain what it is.

You have made a determination that someone doesn't meet a standard. A standard which cannot be defined. A standard that most likely not everyone agrees with because nobody knows what it is. However, a determination has been made, by yourself, that he doesn't meet it.

What if I said "acting presidential" wasn't acting 'hood? Would that be an acceptable standard? What if I said we can't say "y'all", because it isn't a word? What if I said that "acting presidential" meant that he only be seen in a shirt and tie? They only buy American? The love baseball? Can't wear high-tops? Have Twitter? Doesn't have Twitter? Knows all the secret handshakes? Is male?

Seriously. It appears you are basing your determination on what you have seen in the past administrations as a baseline. But, with a nation of so many different personalities and experiences, how can there be just one "presidential"?

Not the poster but here's a start - someone who acts in the best interest of the country and all its citizens, not just himself, his family and a few special interest groups. One that takes the job seriously and works tirelesslyfor the American people. One who hires the best possible candidates for high level positions, not friends and family or whoever has expressed a disdain for whatever organization they will be running. One that listens to all points of view before reaching a conclusion or making a decision. One that isn't seen as a buffoon by the rest of the world (how will he negotiate all these so called great deals when no one takes him seriously?). Finally, one that has some impulse control and doesn't act like a toddler when he doesn't get his way.

[Unregistered]

Make up your mind

Different poster.

[Unregistered]

I'm not railing against porn. You are railing against something you can't even explain what it is.

You have made a determination that someone doesn't meet a standard. A standard which cannot be defined. A standard that most likely not everyone agrees with because nobody knows what it is. However, a determination has been made, by yourself, that he doesn't meet it.

What if I said "acting presidential" wasn't acting 'hood? Would that be an acceptable standard? What if I said we can't say "y'all", because it isn't a word? What if I said that "acting presidential" meant that he only be seen in a shirt and tie? They only buy American? The love baseball? Can't wear high-tops? Have Twitter? Doesn't have Twitter? Knows all the secret handshakes? Is male?

Seriously. It appears you are basing your determination on what you have seen in the past administrations as a baseline. But, with a nation of so many different personalities and experiences, how can there be just one "presidential"?

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.......

I never claimed there was only one way to see "Presidential". You said it.

You can have whatever criteria you choose to define what you believe is Presidential behavior. If you want a President that acts like he lives in the "hood", whatever that means, then support a candidate that does that. All that matters is if it is acceptable to you or not. Your right as an American is to put whatever performance standard you choose to put in place when making your vote.

But hey, guess what, that's my right too. And yes, I do base a lot of what it means to be Presidential on the behavior of the 44 people who have served in this role prior to Trump. Only a fool disregards history when considering the future. I see no problem holding the current office holder to the standards set by men like Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Jackson, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Carter, Bushes, Clinton, Obama and so on.

Unfortunately, for him, as far as my support is concerned, Trump fails miserably against the standards set by most of these that came before him. He diminishes our stature as a nation and is a divisive force within the fabric of America. He has insecurities that make him dangerous to the ongoing health of our nation and our people. That's my view at this time and he is going to have to do plenty of work to change it.

[Unregistered]

Not the poster but here's a start - someone who acts in the best interest of the country and all its citizens, not just himself, his family and a few special interest groups. One that takes the job seriously and works tirelesslyfor the American people. One who hires the best possible candidates for high level positions, not friends and family or whoever has expressed a disdain for whatever organization they will be running. One that listens to all points of view before reaching a conclusion or making a decision. One that isn't seen as a buffoon by the rest of the world (how will he negotiate all these so called great deals when no one takes him seriously?). Finally, one that has some impulse control and doesn't act like a toddler when he doesn't get his way.

Well, I take exception to a President that has Al Sharpton attending State Dinners , mixing it up with foreign leaders. All they have to do is Google him. Not very Presidential .
I take exception to a President that tells me that I can't use my hard earned money to buy and drive an SUV , or to keep my thermostat on 72. Not very Presidential.
I don't think it is Presidential to have a " role model for your daughter with explicit lyrics. Or be a fan of " music " that uses derogatory language.
I don't think it is Presidential to say that " The Cambridge Police acted stupidly "
I don't think it is Presidential to have an intern perform oral sex on you in the Oval Office.

[Unregistered]

Not the poster but here's a start - someone who acts in the best interest of the country and all its citizens, not just himself, his family and a few special interest groups.

Debatable on who he is acting for. But either way, that's a gray area at the minimum...and a slippery slope at worst. Certainly, the previous administration didn't act in the best interest of ALL it's citizens. None would be able to accomplish that

One that takes the job seriously and works tirelesslyfor the American people.

How do you grade someone on "seriously" and "tirelessly"? Is there goofing off, making prank phone calls in meetings? Nodding off?

One who hires the best possible candidates for high level positions, not friends and family or whoever has expressed a disdain for whatever organization they will be running.

Subjective. Who determines who the "best" candidates and on what criteria? Disdain for the organization...or a willingness to look at them with fresh ideas?

One that listens to all points of view before reaching a conclusion or making a decision.

Is that a requirement? Say, for example, the election turned out differently. Would the Deplorables have a view that would be listened to?

One that isn't seen as a buffoon by the rest of the world (how will he negotiate all these so called great deals when no one takes him seriously?).

Seems like South Korea is pretty happy right now. But, if we have a media posting, by far, the most negative stories about someone than any other administration (as has been proven), wouldn't the rest of the world have a negative view? Why should we care? He is the President of the United States of AMERICA, not emperor of the world. He is doing exactly what he said he would do: Put America first. So, of course the rest of the world would be upset by losing their crutch. When they want something, they'll come to us. Always have, always will. He knows it. He knows he's negotiating from a position of power.

...doesn't act like a toddler when he doesn't get his way.

Is that a requirement? Should he count to 5 before responding? 10? 100? How do you define impulse? Were previous administrations impulsive before? Think other presidents have said things they later regretted? Are they all eliminated from "acting presidential" due to this?

...doesn't act like a toddler when he doesn't get his way.

Subjective. Would going on a book tour blaming 84 other people or groups for losing an election be akin to acting like a toddler?

[Unregistered]

Well, I take exception to a President that has Al Sharpton attending State Dinners , mixing it up with foreign leaders. All they have to do is Google him. Not very Presidential .
I take exception to a President that tells me that I can't use my hard earned money to buy and drive an SUV , or to keep my thermostat on 72. Not very Presidential.
I don't think it is Presidential to have a " role model for your daughter with explicit lyrics. Or be a fan of " music " that uses derogatory language.
I don't think it is Presidential to say that " The Cambridge Police acted stupidly "
I don't think it is Presidential to have an intern perform oral sex on you in the Oval Office.

OK...so I assume you expressed that opinion with your vote.


What's your point?

[Unregistered]

OK...so I assume you expressed that opinion with your vote.


What's your point?

Yes.
You read it.

[Unregistered]

They "deserve" it?

So, those who I know who went through an extremely costly and difficult process to bring a baby in, legally, should continue to be pushed in the back? Those who came here 20+ years ago and were put through the ringer to become citizens should be pushed to the back?

Agreed. And, find another country that is as matter-of-fact as we are when you cross their border illegally. North Korea would be a good one ..... hasn't worked out for Europe as well as I think their bleeding hearts would like us all to believe.