How Trump is going to save the auto industry
- Thread starter Purdue95Grad
- Start date
I don't have a clue so let's talk about me and then throw in a jab at the media in the back to get a crowd reaction so they won't realize I didn't answer the question.
College educated people are going to vote for this?
I will say it. The tape was cut before he fully answered the question.
I think he was leading up to the part where he saved several auto plants from going to Mexico; I remember one plant had already been announced and rescinded when Trump came in 2017.
What disturbs me is that Kamala says she will reverse what Joe did, and the media believes her despite the fact that, as a Senator, she was way to the left of Biden. They don't believe Trump, even though a lot of what Harris promises, Trump already did as President.
Here’s the entire answer and I’m four rambling minutes, zero answer. I contend it’s actually worse than what I initially posted.
But please continue with your whataboutism.
Does the media really believe her or are they just posturing/lying to get her elected.
Here is Trump answering the question.
Trump says he'd put 100% tariff on every car imported from Mexico if he’s elected
Despite warnings that domestic consumers would pay more and a lack of specifics about how his plans would work.
Now go find one of Harris answering the question on why the Democrats didn’t close the border sooner or why crime is up or how she is going to improve the economy.
He didn’t answer the question. A 100% tariff is not an answer. Not a realistic one anyway. That’s his go to for anything, which is an indication that he has no idea wtf he’s talking about.Here is Trump answering the question.
Trump says he'd put 100% tariff on every car imported from Mexico if he’s elected
Despite warnings that domestic consumers would pay more and a lack of specifics about how his plans would work.fortune.com
Now go find one of Harris answering the question on why the Democrats didn’t close the border sooner or why crime is up or how she is going to improve the economy.
And then of course you go right to whataboutism to try to deflect away from his non-answer.
Meanwhile in liberal utopia...
The bottom line is that in 2016, the media said that Trump couldn't energize the economy, better secure the border, or stop International wars and skirmishes. And by golly, he did it!
The bottom line is you’re deflecting, but cute response anyway.
I have witnessed and analyzed Presidential campaigns since 1960. It is incredible how candidates make dessert mirages seem attainable. Bush took me in because of Cheney, but was he better than Kerry or Gore? Obama's "Hope and Change" was a disaster, but then again, so were McCain and Romney. These seven people did what the Global Corporation and the Military-Industrial Complexes told them.
ABC, NBC, and ABC used to interview Trump continually to build ratings. The networks' political analysts would warp what I heard live. This hatred by twisting convinced me to endorse Trump, but I was skeptical about whether he could fulfill his boasts.
My cute response meant to say that Kamala has made campaign promises that directly conflicted with her previous actions.
Trump makes a point and then breaks off to emphasize his point better. He can ramble and sometimes does not come full circle with his answer. However, I found that he got more campaign promises done than any other President I know, even though, at times, he went around leftfield to accomplish his promise. For example, Mexico paid millions to better secure our border.
Mmm hmm, speaking of rambling…..what does any of this have to do with the topic of this thread? He talked for four minutes when he was asked the question and didn’t answer a thing. If you need four paragraphs to defend him, he’s doing it wrong and you’re in a cult.
You cannot engage in debate. Nothing but childish insults and name-calling.
You made a random post that was totally unrelated to the topic of the thread and weren’t replying to anyone. Just what were you debating?
He didn't stop the war in Afghanistan. But no new wars!
He'll stop all wars in one day and it will be easy.
No, I was replying to your post: " A 100% tariff is not an answer. Not a realistic one anyway. That’s his go to for anything, which is an indication that he has no idea wtf he’s talking about."
It appears you're having a hysterical over-reaction to an insignificant, trivial issue.
You are right. I ramble, and I do that to ensure everyone understands my point.
Trump is allowed to ramble because he does not have to explain what he may or may not do. The concise point is that he already did it before China unleashed the Wuhan Flu. From 2017 to 2019, Trump kept and GREW good-paying jobs in America.
Thank you. That is a tremendous compliment, but Vance made three mistakes in the debate. 1. Vance did not push back on the lie that Walz said, where Trump and he considered Project 2025, and Trump and he have already denied it. 2. Vance did not push back on the repeated lie that Trump killed the bi-partition border bill; the bill was useless if they just reinstated Trump's 94 Executive Orders. The bill also was tied to Foreign Aid Pork. The two Senators who brought the bill voted no to the adjusted bill, and several Democrats voted against it, too. 3. I would have stressed that Biden/Harris's easing of sanctions on Russia and Iran gave them billions, Russia was able to invade Ukraine, and Iran was able to fund Hamas, the Hoodies, and Hezbollah; 4. Harris had a far-left voting record as a Senator and Marxist ideas when she ran for President in 2020. She is now campaigning on moderate ideas that she will NEVER follow if they place her in office. We should all be scared if, God forbid, this happens.
Gee, I dunno, then maybe he should have just said that instead of four plus minutes of rambling nonsense?
And if you have to ramble or pivot to a non sequitur to make a point, you’re doing it wrong.
Vance should have said that the so-called bipartisan border bill was killed because it allowed 5,000 illegals to come in every day before anything was done to stop them.
“The Biden/Schumer Open Border Bill allows 5,000 immigrants a day into our country.”— House Republicans in a social media post on Monday
“Here’s what the people pushing this ‘deal’ aren’t telling you: It accepts 5,000 illegal immigrants a day and gives automatic work permits to asylum recipients — a magnet for more illegal immigration.”— Steve Scalise, the House majority leader, in a social media post on Sunday
“This bill is a disaster. This bill has 5,000 people a day potentially coming into our country. It doesn’t make sense.” - Former President Donald J. Trump in an interview on Monday
“The Senate AMNESTY bill erases our borders. Every Senator took an oath to uphold our laws, including our border security & immigration laws. The Senators want to allow 5,000 illegal immigrants to walk across our border per day.” — Representative Mary Miller, Republican of Illinois, in a social media post on Sunday
Do we have to do this again? All your quotes are from republicans. Seriously? Who is simply believing what they're told?
"5000 refers to total migrants ATTEMPTING to cross the border-not the number of individuals allowed into the country, as some have claimed. This bill ends the practice of catch and release. "
Your link, and many other articles about this bill, play word games with "allow". In truth, the bill did not open the doors at our border and invite migrants to walk in, so in that sense they were not "allowed in." However, the bill does nothing to prevent them from coming in until an average of 4,000/day come in, and stopping them isn't mandatory until an average of 5,000 day come in. So in truth, the bill doesn't kick in and stop the migrants until 5,000/day have already come in. I'll let you quibble with what the word "allow" means.
Border bill supporters combat misleading claims that it would let in more migrants
A provision of border security legislation that would give the U.S. a new authority to block migrants from entering the country has become a central line of attack from many Republicans who are opposing the legislation.
apnews.com
Wtf is wrong with you? Did you READ the link you posted?Your link, and many other articles about this bill, play word games with "allow". In truth, the bill did not open the doors at our border and invite migrants to walk in, so in that sense they were not "allowed in." However, the bill does nothing to prevent them from coming in until an average of 4,000/day come in, and stopping them isn't mandatory until an average of 5,000 day come in. So in truth, the bill doesn't kick in and stop the migrants until 5,000/day have already come in. I'll let you quibble with what the word "allow" means.
Border bill supporters combat misleading claims that it would let in more migrants
A provision of border security legislation that would give the U.S. a new authority to block migrants from entering the country has become a central line of attack from many Republicans who are opposing the legislation.
Lankford's remark IS REFERRING TO YOU and the all the other MAGA trolls here who simply refuse to accept the truth.
After meeting with Republicans in the Capitol Monday evening, Lankford told reporters that people understand it once he explains it, “but it’s been said wrong so many times that people immediately just go back to, ‘this lets 5,000 people in a day,’ which is just factually wrong, but if you say it enough, it just sounds true.”
BB62, you have been duped. Please listen up this time. The bill does not "let 5,000 people in". However, it doesn't stop them, either.
Verbatim from my link above:
"At issue is a provision in the bipartisan package that would grant the Homeland Security secretary emergency authority to prohibit entry for most individuals if an average of more than 4,000 people per day try to enter the country unlawfully over the course of a week. If the number reaches 5,000 or if 8,500 try to enter unlawfully in a single day, use of the authority would be mandatory."
Last edited:
Listen up? This is you doing exactly what Lankford said. You are duped when you give 4 quotes from republicans that are opposed to the legislation and are lying about it. Is this really how you come to your conclusions on policy matters? Just listen to the people you're voting for?
Yes it does. The 5000 number is just one of the thresholds that trigger the Border Emergency Authority. The 5000 are not being let it. They are encounters or arrivals.
The only ones possibly let in are asylum seekers, and that system would be completely overhauled.
If your going for zero entries, then no legislation will satisfy you. People were still coming in under trump.........and the courts ruled even the king himself can't shut down the asylum system.
“It’s not that the first 5,000 [migrants encountered at the border] are released, that’s ridiculous,” Lankford said on the Senate floor. “The first 5,000 we detain, we screen and then we deport. If we get above 5,000, we just detain and deport.”
As for claims that the bill would allow or accept 5,000 illegal crossings a day, that’s a distortion of what’s in the bill.
“That authority would be mandated when arrivals exceed an average over the previous seven days of 5,000,” Theresa Cardinal Brown, a senior adviser on immigration and border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, told us via email. “This is not a number that is ‘allowed in.’ It is a threshold of ARRIVALS that triggers a new authority.”
We already have more than 5,000 illegal crossings happening,” Brown said. “We aren’t ‘allowing it’; it is happening, and we then have to deal with it.”
“There is this idea that we control how many migrants attempt illegal crossings. We do not. The migrants (and smugglers) control that,” Brown said. “We control what happens once we encounter someone who has already crossed the border illegally.”
Unraveling Misinformation About Bipartisan Immigration Bill - FactCheck.org
Even before a bipartisan group of senators unveiled the text of a foreign aid and immigration overhaul bill on Feb. 4, it faced significant opposition from former President Donald Trump and other Republican leaders. We'll explain what was in the legislation and the facts on two popular talking...
www.factcheck.org
So let me get this straight.Listen up? This is you doing exactly what Lankford said. You are duped when you give 4 quotes from republicans that are opposed to the legislation and are lying about it. Is this really how you come to your conclusions on policy matters? Just listen to the people you're voting for?
Yes it does. The 5000 number is just one of the thresholds that trigger the Border Emergency Authority. The 5000 are not being let it. They are encounters or arrivals.
The only ones possibly let in are asylum seekers, and that system would be completely overhauled.
If your going for zero entries, then no legislation will satisfy you. People were still coming in under trump.........and the courts ruled even the king himself can't shut down the asylum system.
“It’s not that the first 5,000 [migrants encountered at the border] are released, that’s ridiculous,” Lankford said on the Senate floor. “The first 5,000 we detain, we screen and then we deport. If we get above 5,000, we just detain and deport.”
As for claims that the bill would allow or accept 5,000 illegal crossings a day, that’s a distortion of what’s in the bill.
“That authority would be mandated when arrivals exceed an average over the previous seven days of 5,000,” Theresa Cardinal Brown, a senior adviser on immigration and border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, told us via email. “This is not a number that is ‘allowed in.’ It is a threshold of ARRIVALS that triggers a new authority.”
We already have more than 5,000 illegal crossings happening,” Brown said. “We aren’t ‘allowing it’; it is happening, and we then have to deal with it.”
“There is this idea that we control how many migrants attempt illegal crossings. We do not. The migrants (and smugglers) control that,” Brown said. “We control what happens once we encounter someone who has already crossed the border illegally.”
Unraveling Misinformation About Bipartisan Immigration Bill - FactCheck.org
Even before a bipartisan group of senators unveiled the text of a foreign aid and immigration overhaul bill on Feb. 4, it faced significant opposition from former President Donald Trump and other Republican leaders. We'll explain what was in the legislation and the facts on two popular talking...
That authority would be mandated when arrivals exceed an average over the previous seven days of 5,000,” Theresa Cardinal Brown, a senior adviser on immigration and border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, told us via email. “This is not a number that is ‘allowed in.’ It is a threshold of ARRIVALS that triggers a new authority.”
So 1.8 million immigrant a year, that claim asylum, can be let into the Country before a new Authority kicks in?
We already have more than 5,000 illegal crossings happening,” Brown said. “We aren’t ‘allowing it’; it is happening, and we then have to deal with it.”
How are they dealing with them?
They obviously aren't staying in Mexico or being shipped back to their Country of origin.
Maybe that 5000 per day helps explain the immigration crisis.
So help me understand what this bill does, except make legal the 5000 immigrants per day currently coming in.
Oh and give them legal counsel to help them assimilate-err, take advantage of our generous free benefits for them.
So the bill says anything over 5000 per day means detain and deport. JFC doesn't the law state if you cross the border illegally you are to be detained and deported.
Holy Cow, just read the quotation that you choose to cite. The migrants and smugglers decide who comes into our country illegally. That's what it says, your hand-picked quotation. We don't want the migrants and smugglers deciding who comes into our country illegally.
Here's a Republican idea. How about we close the border BEFORE 5,000 illegals come in?
Last edited:
The 5,000 number should be Zero. And they are all illegal immigrants. An 'encounter' is a euphemism for an illegal immigrant. An 'arrival' is another euphemism for an illegal immigrant.
I am happy to know that this bill would have ended catch-and-release. Do you realize that the over ninety Executive Orders that Biden stopped included stopping the practice of catch-and-release? Another Executive Order demanded that those being vetted for asylum have to remain in Mexico. Biden childishly stopped these Orders because they were Trump's. Biden recently enacted one of Trump's Orders, and illegal crossing dropped, and the Democrats are rejoicing about the great job they are doing. Are you kidding me?
It would be nice for Trump to be more like you and answer tough questions concisely, as he does all day. However, I would rather have a President with a vision for the country and will get it done when elected.
If the Democrats figure out a way to manipulate the votes again, I am deathly afraid Kamala will ditch her moderate campaign promises, and refer back to her Marxist policies that will eliminate the Middle Class. She may also decide to depopulate the earth and unleash some nuclear missiles or maybe a new virus.
This is yet another half-truth about the bi-partisan border bill that has been parroted by the rabid left. Yes, IF we had limited illegals to 5,000 per day and IF we also spent billions more on additional detention facilities, then we could end catch-and-release. The 5,000 illegals per day could be immediately placed into their kissy-huggy detention facilities, with of course plenty of food, medical care and education for the little kids.
I’m curious! How many of you have lost your job to one of these non-English speaking illiterate illegal aliens? If so, perhaps you need to go back to high school and stay awake this time.
Do you real see these people as a threat to your existence?
As for drugs, if Americans didn’t buy them, The drug cartels wouldn’t sell them. Who is more to blame?
As for creating jobs, how is that factory in Kenosha Wisconsin that was going to bring all those jobs to America. Trump even used a shovel to proclaim that one. Oh yeah, after a lot of hype and promises the company changed its mind.
When I was poor and stupid I bought a couple of Fords and Dodge. Now I prefer to buy a quality car - Toyota.
My uncle worked at the local Chevy plant. He also had 5 DUIs. But he was allowed to keep making Chevys
Do you real see these people as a threat to your existence?
As for drugs, if Americans didn’t buy them, The drug cartels wouldn’t sell them. Who is more to blame?
As for creating jobs, how is that factory in Kenosha Wisconsin that was going to bring all those jobs to America. Trump even used a shovel to proclaim that one. Oh yeah, after a lot of hype and promises the company changed its mind.
When I was poor and stupid I bought a couple of Fords and Dodge. Now I prefer to buy a quality car - Toyota.
My uncle worked at the local Chevy plant. He also had 5 DUIs. But he was allowed to keep making Chevys
I grew up in the Hamptons. During summer vacations and some Holidays, I worked in the fields at the Cornel Research Farm, and on weekends, I worked as a busboy and dishwasher. I wanted money to put myself through college, and there was no job I wouldn't do. The woke media today is telling kids that the jobs I did are beneath them, so just lay back, and the government will support you.
Not to brag, but my problem in school was that it was too slow because some students could not keep up. Today, our schools have to accommodate non-English-speaking students. Teachers are dropping like flies because their jobs require so much more. Hospitals are being overburdened. I have to buy car insurance for uninsured motorists. They can't read English but are driving without knowing what the signs mean or say. So yes, these people threaten not only my existence and wealth but my friends, family, and fellow LEGAL Americans,
So you are trusting a young man to make the right choice to say no to going on a trip or not putting it in a girl's drink or even not taking the drug that would give him the courage to speak to a girl. Good for you. Then again, you trust a five-year-old with the decision whether to mutilate his or her genitals. Say, I have an idea; let's punish those who do drugs, and let's try to eliminate choosing who is to blame by better securing the border. One caveat. Let's not have DAs like Kamala, who sent black teenagers to prison for smoking weed to show people their persecution record.
When I have time, I will research Kenosha.
Buying a better quality car is capitalism. Kamala's Marxism is you have to buy an electric car. Trump's forte is moving car manufacturing plants back to America, where they can produce the car you want.
Was your Uncle a woman, or did he have another diversity that prevented the Chevy plant from firing him? If not, the Chey plant had the right to fire him for any reason, or they could keep him on if he brought value.
Not to brag, but my problem in school was that it was too slow because some students could not keep up. Today, our schools have to accommodate non-English-speaking students. Teachers are dropping like flies because their jobs require so much more. Hospitals are being overburdened. I have to buy car insurance for uninsured motorists. They can't read English but are driving without knowing what the signs mean or say. So yes, these people threaten not only my existence and wealth but my friends, family, and fellow LEGAL Americans,
So you are trusting a young man to make the right choice to say no to going on a trip or not putting it in a girl's drink or even not taking the drug that would give him the courage to speak to a girl. Good for you. Then again, you trust a five-year-old with the decision whether to mutilate his or her genitals. Say, I have an idea; let's punish those who do drugs, and let's try to eliminate choosing who is to blame by better securing the border. One caveat. Let's not have DAs like Kamala, who sent black teenagers to prison for smoking weed to show people their persecution record.
When I have time, I will research Kenosha.
Buying a better quality car is capitalism. Kamala's Marxism is you have to buy an electric car. Trump's forte is moving car manufacturing plants back to America, where they can produce the car you want.
Was your Uncle a woman, or did he have another diversity that prevented the Chevy plant from firing him? If not, the Chey plant had the right to fire him for any reason, or they could keep him on if he brought value.
