Meanwhile, while we have an extremely intense & insightful debate about the Mexican wall, the latest poll from VA.

http://news.hamptonu.edu/relea...Email-Investigation#

We just need six more days of democRATS prior criminal deeds revieled, plus more voters changing their minds to GOP, and the 8th of Nov. evening could be a real "totty" night!!! Today is a good day for our side I think.

quote:

Originally posted by GT-40DOC:
....and the 8th of Nov. evening could be a real "toddy" night!!! Today is a good day for our side I think.

I remember thinking a few days ago what a headache Para was going to have keeping this place in line the night of November 8th if Trump loses. The more I think about it, Trump winning could be even worse...

At least it'll be a happy headache.

Well, Trump is running three commercials during tonight's 7th game of the World Series.

If he's gonna run a commercial, tonight is a good time.

link

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Mainframe Coder:

quote:

Originally posted by italia:

quote:

Originally posted by Crom:
Cash transfers from the USA to relatives in Mexico are already one of the the largest contributors to the Mexican economy (2nd ?...third ?).

All we have to do is tax those transfers, and Bingo! "Mexico is paying for the wall."

They sent 21.6 billion in 2013, and it has gone steadily upward.

Walls are pretty low-tech devices. You can build a lot of wall for 2% of 21.6 billion.

http://toprightnews.com/mexico...-s-illegals-in-2013/

2% of 21.6 billion is 432 million.

Trump's estimates to build a wall are in the $8-12 billion range. Other estimates are from $5-25 billion.

Trump's plan has nothing to do with taxing money transfers (which are themselves a big problem.) His plan centers on the enormous trade imbalance that currently exists between the U.S. and Mexico. The Mexicans are going to agree to almost anything to keep their goods flowing into the U.S., including paying for a wall...... They'll gladly do it. a $10 billion wall will be small change compared to what they stand to lose.

I will bet you any sum you care to name that Mexico will make no such payment for a wall. Not even one peso.

You are fooling yourself, and allowing Trump to fool you if you think that will happen.

I was willing to let that slide as some sort of crazy campaign exaggeration. You believe it is meant as literal truth. That is hard to believe.

I've approached this with an open mind. I want to see him do it. I don't think he can. I'll hold his beer though.

It won't be as easy as he thinks.

There is a Walmart superstore in Calexico, CA, about a mile from the border. Calexico has a population of something like 40,000. Across the border is Mexicali, the capital of Baja. The Walmart is one of the biggest grossing stores in the Walmart chain.

In San Diego, the communities along the border, San Ysidro, Chula Vista, there are stores, small businesses that do a tremendous volume of business with Mexicans who cross the border relatively freely, live in Tijuana, Rosarita, etc.

Just sayin.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
Well, Trump is running three commercials during tonight's 7th game of the World Series.

If he's gonna run a commercial, tonight is a good time.

link

All three are good but the "Corruption" one is my favorite

A wall would not need to be built if the law changed regarding babies born in the USA become a citizens. Even Obama, early on of course, suggested we consider changing that rule. I know some of our best citizens, definitely those who appreciate what they now have, are here because of illegal entry to the US.

Just change one law, and most of the problem would be solved.

quote:

Originally posted by entropy:
WTF's up with MN? 10,000 lakes, lots of walleye and northerns, great grouse hunting in the fall. Quaint towns with Lutheran churches, Pond Hockey Championships on Lake Nokoomis...

WTFF????

It's always been a liberal, Socialist state. The Twin Cities reeks of it. I used to live a block from Lake Nokomis for years. Living there lets you know immediately how the majority there votes (think LOTS of single-family homes and twenty-to-thirty-somethings). Nothing will ever change here.

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
A wall would not need to be built if the law changed regarding babies born in the USA become a citizens. Even Obama, early on of course, suggested we consider changing that rule. I know some of our best citizens, definitely those who appreciate what they now have, are here because of illegal entry to the US.

Just change one law, and most of the problem would be solved.

Do you mean this law?

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
[...]

Not as easy as just "passing a law."

quote:

Good News: 35% Of Government Workers Might Quit If Trump Wins

Can I get a "YOU'RE FIRED!"

My wife and I cast our vote a little while ago, 2 more for Trump.

Her grandmother voted for Killary, so one of ours canceled out that one.

The wall is simple we had a thread on it already.. No more aid til the walls built. They can pay americans to do it or they can build it for much cheaper labor costs. Thier choice.

quote:

Originally posted by mk689:

Do you mean this law?

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
[...]

Not as easy as just "passing a law."

The problem is that I and many others, including some esteemed legal scholars say the law is being incorrectly applied. Key is "subject to the jurisdiction", and it can easily be argued that illegals are not, they are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country. So we don't need a new law, we need to interpret this correctly. That's why you are still a US citizen if you're born to US parents outside the US. So they're interpreting it both ways at the same time.

Look at what is going on right here in Broward County already! Of course our supervisor of elections Brenda Snipes ran uncontested on our ballot too. So much for no voter fraud!

This is why we need to win BIG LEAGUE folks!

http://insider.foxnews.com/201...allots-vote-election

quote:

Originally posted by Mainframe Coder:


He said exactly what I said. "Payment" can occur in many forms. Expand your thinking.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”


LEWIS CARROLL (Charles L. Dodgson), Through the Looking-Glass, chapter 6, p. 205 (1934). First published in 1872.

Will Comey be removed?

http://nypost.com/2016/11/02/o...n-email-controversy/

In a last-minute effort to save Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House, Barack Obama’s chief adviser, Valerie Jarrett, has urged the president to fire FBI Director James Comey, according to a source close to Jarrett.

Obama and Jarrett are furious with Comey for reopening the FBI’s investigation of Hillary’s emails just 11 days before the presidential election. They blame Comey for Hillary’s alarming slide in the polls.

“Valerie argued that Comey was interfering deliberately in the election process and had to be stopped,” the source said. “The president said he was worried about the consequences of taking such an action — the tsunami of outrage that would come his way, and possibly become a major footnote, or worse, in the history of his presidency.

“There is also the real possibility that such an action could backfire on the president and result in a Saturday Night Massacre,” the source said.

Nonetheless, “the president gave orders to convene meetings with his other top advisers over the matter,” the source continued. “And that’s how he and Jarrett left the matter for now.”

There is a legal precedent for a president firing an FBI director.

In the summer of 1993, President Bill Clinton fired FBI Director William Session, citing a highly critical report on Sessions’ conduct by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility.

The Justice Department report found, among other things, that Sessions had engaged in a sham transaction to avoid paying taxes on his use of an FBI limousine to take him to and from work, that he had billed the government for a security fence around his home that provided no security and that he had arranged business trips to places where he could meet with relatives.
SEE ALSO
Obama slams FBI chief Comey for operating on 'leaks' and 'innuendo'
Obama slams FBI chief Comey for operating on 'leaks' and 'innuendo'

The Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the president’s right to fire any member of the Executive Branch.

Obama has said that he doesn’t want to meddle in the FBI’s process. But in an interview today with CNN’s NowThis News, he said it was important to follow a practice of not allowing intimations or suggestions to pervade the public’s view of the case.

“I do think that there is a norm that when there are investigations we don’t operate on innuendo and we don’t operate on incomplete information and we don’t operate on leaks,” Obama said in an obvious slap at Comey and his methods. “We operate based on concrete decisions that are made. When this was investigated thoroughly last time the conclusion of the FBI, the conclusion of the Justice Department, the conclusion of repeated congressional investigations was she had made some mistakes but that there wasn’t anything there that was prosecutable.”

It’s no secret Obama harbors contempt for the FBI director. As quoted in “Guilty as Sin,” Obama fumes to Valerie Jarrett that appointing Comey was his “worst mistake as president.”

In what looked like a concerted effort to call for Comey’s head, Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader in the House of Representatives, suggested that Comey might be removed from his post, saying in an interview with CNN, “Maybe he’s not in the right job.”

Won't happen, if for no other reason, the risk of a SNM.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
And he will spend whatever it takes to do all that! And cut taxes, too!

You may have missed the memo that the old economic rules have been repealed. Nowadays you just print as much money as you want and it is good for the economy. It doesn't matter what the Fed's capital margin is. Just ask Paul Krugman, he'll be happy to explain it.

I saw the memo. I just don't buy it.

I am a Coolidgean. The government should do very little and spend only only on essential functions, like libraries and roads to get to them. Maybe wage war and suppress violence domestically, almost nothing else.

When people spend their own money, freely, voluntarily, as they see fit, is terrific for the economy. Very little waste and inefficiency.

Sure there will be the occasional depression, lots of fraud. That's why we need libraries so you can learn everything you need to know. Too lazy? Didn't learn to read? Rather watch basketball? There is always a disadvantage to messing up!

+1M

Removing comey before the election would be icing on the cake.

From TS email thread

Fox reporting that highly likely Clinton server was hacked