Deporting 11 million people may not be practical but politicians of all stripes say all kinds of bullshit to get elected. What we get a glimmer here from Trump is that he plans to address a serious problem in a serious way, UNLIKE EVERY PREVIOUS FEDERAL POLITICIAN. The exact details are....appropriately....still to come. In the meantime he has our attention on the subject. This is what EVERY elected politician tries to do. Why judge Trump differently?
On Islamic immigration, you conveniently obscure the salient points of Trumps position, like the MSM and Washington insiders. He is talking about stopping it, UNTIL BETTER VETTING AND CONTROLS ARE IN PLACE! What do you see as a problem with that?
As Ed Good so eloquently put it, Trump is an entrepreneur, not all ventures succeed and Trump is playing by the rules of the game as a businessman. What he is talking about as a politician is changing the ground rules. See the difference?
canvasback, I try my best to judge them all the same. I think I watched every Republican debate. We got first crack at the whole bunch here in Iowa. Trump started off on the wrong foot. The Des Moines Register--the closest thing we have to a newspaper with significant statewide interest--was covering all the candidates, reporting on their events, etc. Then the paper wrote an editorial suggesting that Trump should drop out. They didn't think he would make a good president. After which Trump pulled their press credentials. No more Register reporters at his events; therefore, no more Register coverage of his events. So, if he's elected president and he tosses out every journalist who ever says anything negative about him, pretty soon he's going to be holding pretty small press conferences. And those tactics sound a lot more like Putin than the POTUS.
Immigration, in specific: I listened to everybody's plan. Details to follow? When? Everybody else had more details than Trump. "Details to follow" means "I didn't do my homework and I'm not really ready to discuss the subject." I'd rather hear at least a FEW details. You know, the more important ones.
Stopping Muslim immigration until better vetting and controls are in place . . . If a Muslim has been working with our troops or the CIA etc in Afghanistan or Iraq, thereby putting his life at risk (and his family as well) and if the military or the CIA says "This guy deserves a visa!", I'd say you're not going to get much better vetting than that. I was part of the Libya Taskforce at CIA, straight out of training in 1969, shortly after Qadhafi took over. We had locals there we knew would be in trouble if we didn't get them out. And we did. Seems to me the American thing to do. I know military and intel people who served in Vietnam and Laos, and who were very upset because we left behind a lot of our allies.
Trump needs money so badly that he has to have a line of clothing made overseas? How about jump-starting the industry in this country and proudly announcing that the clothing is "100% American made"? I expect some folks here would go for that kind of sales pitch. Personally, I get nervous around a businessman who compromises his principles because "it's just business, after all". Politicians compromise their positions and we don't seem to cut them much slack. Why give businessmen a free ride? And what's to say that Trump won't compromise principles in politics, as he has in business? Unlike everyone else in the race (except Carson), he has no political record for us to go on . . . so we have to look at his business record.
