2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Irish YJ]

I disagree. Hilldog isn't talking about nuking ISIS (which is ridiculous, they are a worldwide organization, not a country), Bernie isn't talking about rounding up Mexicans to send back and Cruz isn't talking about banning all Muslims. You guys don't like Hilldog because a) she's a lib and b) you think she's a liar. Guess what? All politicians are liars, but they are liars that play within the rules. Trump isn't a politician, he's a power hungry oligarch that is manipulating an entire segment of the country in order to spin their hate into his success.

The guy isn't even a real conservative. It's absurd that people are actually falling for his act. His party should really be "oligarchy", as that is exactly what he is...

Wooly we can disagree and that's alright. I respect your views. My view,,, Trump isn't going to nuke anyone. He's just talking tough. I'm also OK with sending anyone back to anyplace if they came here illegally. That's simply enforcing existing laws. And I don't think Hilary is a liar. She is a liar. Trump is manipulating, but no more than Hilary. Both are power hungry. And why is lying playing within the rules? And how will Trump exactly play outside of the rules. Trump to me, isn't playing on my hate. He's appealing to the anti-status-quo (I still think he's a buffoon, and it saddens me that I would consider voting for him over all the other idiots). I don't hate Mexicans, but we need to do something more than we are doing about immigration. I don't hate Muslims, and I don't support a wholesale ban, but we need make some practical choices and weigh the security of US citizens more than we have.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I love a lot about Bernie, but this perfectly encapsulates why I think he's a horrible fit for President and why I'll be voting HillDog (unless Kasich somehow wrangles the nomination and then I'll have to think harder).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-to-a-disaster-for-bernie-sanders/?tid=sm_fb

I've had this revelation myself about Bernie on certain issues. But as someone who's supported him 100% and followed his campaign closely, I'll say that a lot of Bernie's ideas are more about 1) Ending inequality 2) Ending corruption 3) Focus on climate change 4) Helping the middle class/poor and 5) Moving politics towards the left for a change. So with that said, every time he lists policies, it's easy to say "Eh, I understand him wanting to do that. It probably won't happen. But maybe it'll at the very least help with any of the 5 listed points above." That's how I view Bernie Sanders as POTUS anyways. Not to mention that I agree with almost nothing that any other candidate has to say/do. I think Cruz and Trump would be awful for this country. I think HRC would essentially carry on Obama's policies while incrementally taking politics and government a little further right (Which I also think is bad for this country. We have two sides for a reason...), not to mention she's just a continuation of the lying and corruption and everything that's wrong in DC.

In summary, I truly don't believe Bernie will accomplish even 50% of his goals as POTUS. But if he can help bring back some equality, help end government corruption, help shift politics left a little, and be a kickstarter to taking on climate change....then he has my vote 100% of the time.

Edit:

And to add something...Bernie's lack of ins-and-outs of some of his policies is a problem when it comes to the nitty gritty details. But isn't that why you hire a cabinet and surround yourself with the people who do know those things and can help you accomplish your goals? I mean it's pretty well documented that Bush didn't know shit about foreign policy and leaned on Chenney, Rice, Powell, Gates, Rumsfeld, among others. [Maybe that's a bad analogy because apparently they didnt' know what the fuck they were doing either, haha, but I digress.]

Second, why is that when Bernie has an idea he gets blasted in the media on the details. "How are you going to do it?!" "How are you going to pay for it?!" etc. Sort of like how Trump gets blasted for his Mexican-financed Trump Wall. But when HRC flip-flops a millions times on the trail. No one calls her out. When Ted Cruz and Kasich start talking about only taking Christian immigrants...that stuff gets down played. Repubs want budget cuts, tax cuts, and increased military spending. Every one knows Trump's and Cruz's tax plans would be horrible for this country and the deficit, yet how often are the media putting them on blast for it? Maybe they are and I'm just sensitive to Bernie's critics (if that's the case, I sincerely apologize), but man...sometimes I feel like Bernie is being nitpicked while other candidates are doing/saying way more insane and asinine things but it goes unnoticed.

Sorry for the rant.

Edit 4/8/16: This article is a complete hatchetjob. It's all over the internet and if you actually read the transcripts, you can see where they completely tried to trap Bernie, twist his words, put words in his mouth, etc. Even after he clarifies his stance on multiple questions, they still ran multiple smear articles the next day using phrases that Bernie actually never even said.

 

[woolybug25]

Wooly we can disagree and that's alright. I respect your views. My view,,, Trump isn't going to nuke anyone. He's just talking tough. I'm also OK with sending anyone back to anyplace if they came here illegally. That's simply enforcing existing laws. And I don't think Hilary is a liar. She is a liar. Trump is manipulating, but no more than Hilary. Both are power hungry. And why is lying playing within the rules? And how will Trump exactly play outside of the rules. Trump to me, isn't playing on my hate. He's appealing to the anti-status-quo (I still think he's a buffoon, and it saddens me that I would consider voting for him over all the other idiots). I don't hate Mexicans, but we need to do something more than we are doing about immigration. I don't hate Muslims, and I don't support a wholesale ban, but we need make some practical choices and weigh the security of US citizens more than we have.

Thanks YJ. I respect your opinion as well. Thank you for debating in good faith.

I totally understand the folks that think he will back down to more reasonable actions once elected. He talks about doing that in his book, The Art of The Deal. That being said... What makes conservatives think that they aren't the ones being played? If that reasoning is an acceptable belief regarding Trump, who is to say that what he "back off into" isn't a liberal philosophy. The whole conservative thing is new to him. Heck, he was pro choice a couple years ago. He was a staunch liberal for over 40 years.

At some point, either his voting constituency (who wonder why all the illegals haven't been rounded up as promised) or the liberal politicians he has horse traded with over the decades (and know where "the bodies are buried ") will come calling?

Imo, he is dangerous because he will do what he says or he is more dangerous if he doesn't. It's a lose-lose scenario for the country and the Republican Party.

 

[kmoose]

I disagree. Hilldog isn't talking about nuking ISIS (which is ridiculous, they are a worldwide organization, not a country)

Neither is Trump, though. It's not like someone asked him what he would do about ISIS, and he said, "I'd consider nuking them." He was specifically asked:

RYAN: You [MUFFLED] mentioned a few minutes earlier here that you would knock ISIS. You’ve mentioned it many times. You’ve also mentioned the risk of putting American troop in a danger area. If you could substantially reduce the risk of harm to ground troops, would you use a battlefield nuclear weapon to take out ISIS?

Trump responded:

TRUMP: I don’t want to use, I don’t want to start the process of nuclear. Remember the one thing that everybody has said, I’m a counterpuncher. Rubio hit me. Bush hit me. When I said low energy, he’s a low-energy individual, he hit me first. I spent, by the way he spent 18 million dollars’ worth of negative ads on me. That’s putting [MUFFLED]…

When pressed, Trump avoided directly answering yes or no to the question.

I'm not defending Trump here. I'm merely pointing out that saying he is going around "talking about nuking ISIS" is a bit of a mischaracterization. I do think you have valid concerns driving your vote. I just wish you would not choose to cast that vote for the status quo, which we all know is badly fvcked up.

 

[Irish YJ]

Thanks YJ. I respect your opinion as well. Thank you for debating in good faith.

I totally understand the folks that think he will back down to more reasonable actions once elected. He talks about doing that in his book, The Art of The Deal. That being said... What makes conservatives think that they aren't the ones being played? If that reasoning is an acceptable belief regarding Trump, who is to say that what he "back off into" isn't a liberal philosophy. The whole conservative thing is new to him. Heck, he was pro choice a couple years ago. He was a staunch liberal for over 40 years.

At some point, either his voting constituency (who wonder why all the illegals haven't been rounded up as promised) or the liberal politicians he has horse traded with over the decades (and know where "the bodies are buried ") will come calling?

Imo, he is dangerous because he will do what he says or he is more dangerous if he doesn't. It's a lose-lose scenario for the country and the Republican Party.

Just about every politician backs off some. And frankly I'm OK with him being stuck somewhere in-between GOP and Libs. I don't like labels to be honest (I think the whole party system, or what has morphed into, is at the root of our problems). I'm perfectly OK with him not building a wall, or not rounding up everyone, but instead making some practical and tough laws that does more than what is in place today. I'm OK with more inspection when it comes to Muslims, specifically refugees, entering the US (in lieu of a wholesale ban). And I'm OK with him twisting some of our "Allies", and certainly some of our adversaries when it comes to foreign policy, trade etc. (I'm simply tired of dumping money outside of our borders and getting nothing or very little in return while in our current economic situation and deficit).

Back to the label thing. I have both GOP and Lib views on different things. I don't let ideology however blind me to reality and practical resolution. It's also my belief that a pure dem, or pure repub is not pure anything as there are too many "issues and platforms" inside each party to make it impossible for one to be purely anything. If anyone is pure this, or pure that, IMO they are blindly siding with a party just because they hate the other party so much it legitimizes things internally to them instead of forming their own beliefs on specific areas of debate.

Will check in later. prepping for a meeting and then on the road to Charlotte for a client visit and mini-technology conference (at Bass Pro yahoo).

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Just about every politician backs off some. And frankly I'm OK with him being stuck somewhere in-between GOP and Libs. I don't like labels to be honest (I think the whole party system, or what has morphed into, is at the root of our problems). I'm perfectly OK with him not building a wall, or not rounding up everyone, but instead making some practical and tough laws that does more than what is in place today. I'm OK with more inspection when it comes to Muslims, specifically refugees, entering the US (in lieu of a wholesale ban). And I'm OK with him twisting some of our "Allies", and certainly some of our adversaries when it comes to foreign policy, trade etc. (I'm simply tired of dumping money outside of our borders and getting nothing or very little in return while in our current economic situation and deficit).

Back to the label thing. I have both GOP and Lib views on different things. I don't let ideology however blind me to reality and practical resolution. It's also my belief that a pure dem, or pure repub is not pure anything as there are too many "issues and platforms" inside each party to make it impossible for one to be purely anything. If anyone is pure this, or pure that, IMO they are blindly siding with a party just because they hate the other party so much it legitimizes things internally to them instead of forming their own beliefs on specific areas of debate.

Will check in later. prepping for a meeting and then on the road to Charlotte for a client visit and mini-technology conference (at Bass Pro yahoo).

Good post. I agree with a lot of this. But Trump needs to back off the hateful rhetoric. Even if it's all schtick, it'd maddeningly arrogant, condescending, and divisive. Some of it is downright ignorant.

And if you're upset about the deficit, voting Trump is only going to worsen it...by a lot.

 

[RDU Irish]

Just about every politician backs off some. And frankly I'm OK with him being stuck somewhere in-between GOP and Libs. I don't like labels to be honest (I think the whole party system, or what has morphed into, is at the root of our problems). I'm perfectly OK with him not building a wall, or not rounding up everyone, but instead making some practical and tough laws that does more than what is in place today. I'm OK with more inspection when it comes to Muslims, specifically refugees, entering the US (in lieu of a wholesale ban). And I'm OK with him twisting some of our "Allies", and certainly some of our adversaries when it comes to foreign policy, trade etc. (I'm simply tired of dumping money outside of our borders and getting nothing or very little in return while in our current economic situation and deficit).

Back to the label thing. I have both GOP and Lib views on different things. I don't let ideology however blind me to reality and practical resolution. It's also my belief that a pure dem, or pure repub is not pure anything as there are too many "issues and platforms" inside each party to make it impossible for one to be purely anything. If anyone is pure this, or pure that, IMO they are blindly siding with a party just because they hate the other party so much it legitimizes things internally to them instead of forming their own beliefs on specific areas of debate.

Will check in later. prepping for a meeting and then on the road to Charlotte for a client visit and mini-technology conference (at Bass Pro yahoo).

Excellent post. It would be refreshing if more pundits and party loyalists could at least acknowledge most topics are not binary - lots of grey area and room to work. For example, voting against third trimester abortions is labeled as being anti choice by pro-choicers for restricting access to abortions and pro-choice by pro-lifers as it still allows abortion in the first two trimesters. The two sides can't respect each other enough to say there is a reasonable middle ground to start from.

 

[NDinL.A.]

THIS IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS!!!!

1. Hillary Clinton is awful for this country...

2. She isn't in it for her ego...she is in it for POWER.

3. If you see Hillary as a better option than Trump, you don't understand the the damage power hungry folks can do...and you don't understand the moderating...yes moderating impact of Ego.

4. Trump is an insufferable dickhead that thinks he can turn everything around because of who he is...When it comes time for action, he will be moderated by one word "legacy", he'll moderate and compromise, and prove himself "right"....that he was the best man for the job.

5. What will Hillary do...you can bet whatever is good for the Clintons, and THAT has the potential for more damage than Trump could cause by being a childish dickhead.

Its not the threat of him saying something, or even doing something provocative that should scare you...its being quietly being sold out, and put in harm's way that comes w/o warning...mark my words...that vile garbage heap of flesh, bone, and no soul will hurt this country far more than Donald Trump could ever fathom.

Where to begin?

1. Trump is in it for ego AND power. So there’s that. That makes him FAR worse than Hillary, as crazy as that may seem.

2. Trump has both a MASSIVE ego and a thirst for power, so anyone who votes for Trump over Hillary doesn’t understand the damage someone like him can do.

3. How can ANYONE say that Trump will be moderated? What in this political cycle, in his life (have you read any of his books and his thoughts on power, on revenge, on women, etc???) makes you think this man can be moderated at all, much less more than Hillary?

4. Trump is out for one person, and one person only – TRUMP. He has proven that time and time again. He claims to care about AMERICAN jobs, but in the next breath brags about knowing the H1-B Visa laws so well that he got away with hiring thousands of cheap foreigners instead of Americans. Why? To line his supposedly already deep pockets even further. THAT is the guy you think cares less of himself than the Clintons? Please.

5. Trump would set this country’s economy and foreign affairs so far back that we’d be effed for God knows how long. Look at any non-partisan review of his bull-shit policies – they are an outright joke. Did you see his absolutely ridiculous (and most likely illegal) “plan” to make Mexico come up with a 10 billion dollar check that they don’t have? If he gets elected, you and I and everyone else middle class and below will get absolutely hosed by his policies, because prices for everything will sky-rocket like we’ve never seen while #nevertrump tries to get all these countries to “behave” while we slap them with the highest tariffs in history. And don’t even get me started on all the crap he doesn’t know. At least Hillary has a clue when it comes to the policies and issues that are also important to our country outside of jobs and ISIS.

Hillary at worse would mean the status quo – which a lot of people don’t like (and I absolutely get why people don’t like it) but at least there are many people still thriving and the economy is stable. With Trump – holy hell, this bumbling idiot would make us the laughing stock of the world, he’d make the USA the enemy of more countries/groups than ever and make it even more a target for terrorists, he’d divide the country like we haven’t seen since the Civil War, he’d make racism acceptable again (see: any of his KKK rallies, errrrrrr, Trump rallies, or read any of NDgradstudent’s posts), and he would fuck our economy from here to China.

Crazy thing is, I actually agree with his takes on crime and SOME if his ways to get rid of terrorists. I just don’t want that idiot anywhere near the decision making process.

 

[RDU Irish]

Trump goes anywhere close to what you are talking about and both sides will impeach him in a heartbeat. He is not part of the protected Washington elite. IMO, Trump has to play it cleaner than anyone and you will see him tone it down dramatically once the primary is over. Every single answer he gives will be an attack on Hillary. "What is your policy on X?" Trump - "Hillary is a disaster and doesn't have a clue on X, anyone that thinks she can do better than me on X needs their head examined."

As for Cruz - hearing two women of different generations describe him was hilarious the other day. Both "don't trust" evangelicals - I suspect all the libs on this board will latch on to that. He creeps them out on pretty much every level. They want someone who is going throw the gloves off and fight without all the nuance and BS. Also see Kasich as too wimpy. Apparently the red tomato look is more appealing than any words that come out of his mouth.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Trump goes anywhere close to what you are talking about and both sides will impeach him in a heartbeat. He is not part of the protected Washington elite. IMO, Trump has to play it cleaner than anyone and you will see him tone it down dramatically once the primary is over. Every single answer he gives will be an attack on Hillary. "What is your policy on X?" Trump - "Hillary is a disaster and doesn't have a clue on X, anyone that thinks she can do better than me on X needs their head examined."

Trump has consistently been saying he will start to tone it down and ...and then 5 minutes later he's on the attack again. He just can't help himself. He SAYS he will tone it down, but his ego keeps telling him (and he reminds us all the time) that he is winning BECAUSE of his brashness and #nofilter, and the exit polls last night said the same thing - that his supporters love his "I don't care, I'm going to say whatever I want" attitude.

So when the polls come out in the general, and he's getting destroyed by Hillary, IMO he'll blame his "presidential tone" and ramp things up by saying something outrageous, not just about Hillary, but about ISIS or China or North Korea or wherever and whoever. It's just what he does. Just read his quotes about revenge - it's fascinating (and pretty sick if you ask me).

I honestly think that he's spit his wad. He's done (in the general). He pissed off too many groups of people, and they will coalesce against him. And it's not just women, and Latinos, and Muslims, and Blacks, and handicapped, etc (although, the minority and women vote are going to kill him), it's even the Republicans that he's pissed off. For example, I have voted Republican my entire life except for one time over a decade ago. If my favorite candidate gets knocked out, I simply vote for the Republican nominee. But I will not vote for Trump. MANY Rubio supporters will not. And MANY Cruz supporters, because of the way Trump has gone after Cruz so viciously, will not vote for Trump (and vice-versa). The Democrats, on the other hand, will come together (for the most part) for the greater cause. At the very least, they will come together in FAR greater numbers than the Republicans, if it is Trump and probably if it is Cruz too. It's insane - the Republicans are fucked.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

HRC with a middle finger to the Left: https://theintercept.com/2016/03/01/nra-lobbyist-will-co-host-clinton-fundraiser/

The day I call HRC a true Progressive, is the day I'll call Trump a true Republican.

Unrelated: I had to laugh at this. "How will Trump, as President, create millions of jobs for America?" Answer: "Build hotels and create a new car." LOL

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/za_R_VYWVDM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[ACamp1900]

"My favorite policy is his ass kicking. "

 

[Legacy]

Wall St is pretty certain Hillary Clinton will be president

Recent indications from deep-pocketed institutional investors as well as those who frequent prediction markets say Hillary Clinton will win. And it's not close.

More than 70 percent of respondents to a recent Citigroup poll of institutional clients viewed the former secretary of state, first lady and New York senator as the likely 45th president. Just over 10 percent give Donald Trump the nod, while fellow Republican John Kasich is a few points behind. Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republican Ted Cruz barely register. (The poll was taken before Sanders and Cruz scored big primary wins Tuesday in Wisconsin.)

 

[NDgradstudent]

Wall St is pretty certain Hillary Clinton will be president

Her being President is definitely good news for Wall Street. As she explained two months ago:

“If we broke up the big banks tomorrow,” Mrs. Clinton asked the audience of black, white and Hispanic union members, “would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the L.G.B.T. community?,” she said, using an abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. “Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?”

At each question, the crowd called back with a resounding no.

Hooray for big banks! Clinton 2016.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Her being President is definitely good news for Wall Street. As she explained two months ago:
Hooray for big banks! Clinton 2016.

And yet, your boy Trump supported her for over a decade and complimented her on her work as Secretary of State.

It's astonishing how Trump's "Make America White Again" campaign is backfiring and has him even far more unlikable than Hillary, a candidate begging to be beaten. It's a problem when 2/3rds of Republican voters in Wisconsin find you scary and/or would be concerned if you became president. He's getting smoked so badly in the general polls that it shows (thank God) that it doesn't pay to be a racist, sexist, ignorant prick.

 

[BGIF]

Bernie Sanders: Hillary Clinton not 'qualified' for president - CNNPolitics.com

 

[BGIF]

Last night Fox did a projection of the remaining primaries and projected Trump being about 30-40 delegates short.

About an hour later CNN did a state by state breakdown of the remaining primaries and projected Trump to be about 1190. plus or minus, or about 47 votes short of nailing down the nomination pre-convention. CNN projects Trump takes the NE, Cruz takes most of what left of the West, and Indiana. Trump takes about 120 delegates out of CAL. CNN notes even with Indiana Trump would still fall short.

 

[BGIF]

National Border Patrol Council - National Border Patrol Council Endorses Donald Trump for President

Published: Wednesday, 30 March 2016 13:42

The National Border Patrol Council is the official organization representing our nation’s Border Patrol Agents. We represent 16,500 agents who selflessly serve this country in an environment where our own political leaders try to keep us from doing our jobs.

The NBPC has had a longstanding practice of not endorsing presidential candidates in the primaries. We will not, however, shy away from voicing our opinions as it pertains to border security and the men and women of the United States Border Patrol. As such, we are breaking with our past practice and giving our first-ever endorsement in a presidential primary. We think it is that important: if we do not secure our borders, American communities will continue to suffer at the hands of gangs, cartels and violent criminals preying on the innocent. The lives and security of the American people are at stake, and the National Border Patrol Council will not sit on the sidelines.

As an organization we expect our elected officials to aggressively pursue the interests of the country. America has already tried a young, articulate freshman senator who never created a job as an attorney and under whose watch criminal cartels have been given the freest border reign ever known.

Unlike his opponents, Donald Trump is not a career politician, he is an outsider who has created thousands of jobs, pledged to bring about aggressive pro-American change, and who is completely independent of special interests. We don't need a person who has the perfect Washington-approved tone, and certainly NOT another establishment politician in the W.H. Indeed, the fact that people are more upset about Mr. Trump’s tone than about the destruction wrought by open borders tells us everything we need to know about the corruption in Washington.

We need a person in the White House who doesn't fear the media, who doesn't embrace political correctness, who doesn't need the money, who is familiar with success, who won't bow to foreign dictators, who is pro-military and values law enforcement, and who is angry for America and NOT subservient to the interests of other nations. Donald Trump is such a man.

Mr. Trump is as bold and outspoken as other world leaders who put their country's interests ahead of all else. Americans deserve to benefit for once instead of always paying and apologizing. Our current political establishment has bled this country dry, sees their power evaporating, and isn't listening to voters who do all the heavy lifting. Trump is opposed by the established powers specifically because they know he is the only candidate who actually threatens the established powers that have betrayed this country.

You can judge a man by his opponents: all the people responsible for the problems plaguing America today are opposing Mr. Trump. It is those without political power – the workers, the law enforcement officers, the everyday families and community members – who are supporting Mr. Trump.

Mr. Trump will take on special interests and embrace the ideas of rank-and-file Border Patrol agents rather than listening to the management yes-men who say whatever they are programmed to say. This is a refreshing change that we have not seen before – and may never see again.

Mr. Trump is correct when he says immigration wouldn’t be at the forefront of this presidential campaign if months ago he hadn’t made some bold and necessary statements. And when the withering media storm ensued he did not back down one iota. That tells you the measure of a man. When the so-called experts said he was too brash and outspoken, and that he would fade away, they were proven wrong. We are confident they will be proven wrong again in November when he becomes President of the United States.

There is no greater physical or economic threat to Americans today than our open border. And there is no greater political threat than the control of Washington by special interests. In view of these threats, the National Border Patrol Council endorses Donald J. Trump for President – and asks the American people to support Mr. Trump in his mission to finally secure the border of the United States of America, before it is too late.

 

[phgreek]

National Border Patrol Council - National Border Patrol Council Endorses Donald Trump for President

Published: Wednesday, 30 March 2016 13:42

Just contemplating the vile, degrading attacks these folks just signed up for.

I'm guessing because they support Trump, there will be a DOJ inquiry into their treatment of immigrants...surely someone, somewhere can spin a yarn to get a DOJ inquiry...I mean how can these folks come out in support of Trump and not be evil, racist, misogynistic bastards...? What do they know regarding policy, practice, and general goings on near the boarder anyway...

 

[BGIF]

AFL-CIO Urged to Dump Border Patrol Union for Trump Endorsement - NBC News

Suzanne Gamboa
Apr 1, 2016


The Border Patrol union's endorsement of Donald Trump has been met with calls for the AFL-CIO to kick the border guards' union out of its federation.

Hours after the National Border Patrol Council endorsed Trump - its first endorsement in a primary - the immigration activist and anti-deportation group #Not1More had posted a petition online calling for the AFL-CIO to take action.

#Not1More says in a letter to the AFL-CIO published with the online petition that the Border Patrol union's endorsement of the "racist and xenophobic" Trump campaign furthers the council's record of countering the AFL-CIO.

"The National Border Patrol Council's presence in the house of labor has been tolerated for too long," the group said.

A spokesman for the council was not immediately available when contacted by NBC News Latino.

AFL-CIO President Trumka has a pro-immigration reform stance, which includes border security measures. Trumka has argued that keeping millions of workers in the country illegally and continuing with some of the dysfunction in the immigration system is a drag on all American workers' wages.

A spokesman for the AFL-CIO could not be immediately reached for comment. The AFL-CIO is a federation of 56 national and international labor unions representing 12.5 million people, according to its website.

its endorsement, the Border Patrol Council said it was breaking its longstanding practice of not endorsing in primaries by endorsing Trump.

The council called Trump an outsider who has created thousands of jobs, is pledging to bring about change and is "completely independent of special interests."

"We need a person in the White House who doesn't fear the media, who doesn't embrace political correctness, who doesn't need the money, who is familiar with success, who won't bow to foreign dictators, who is pro-military and values law enforcement, and who is angry for America and NOT subservient to the interests of other nations," the group said.

The union cheered Trump's rhetoric and praised him for not backing down on his "bold and necessary" statements made in his campaign.

When he declared he was running for president, Trump said Mexico has been sending Mexicans to the U.S. who are rapists and criminals and who bring drugs He has gone on to call for suspension of immigration by Muslims to the U.S. and made other statements that have been considered offensive or racist.

The U.S. Border Patrol has a number of Hispanic employees. In an annual performance report for fiscal 2014, Customs and Border Protection stated about 39 percent of its armed officers and 50 percent of Border Patrol agents were Hispanic. The support staff also includes Latinos.

The council's Trump endorsement comes at a time when illegal immigration is down and more Mexicans are leaving the U.S., some with their American citizen children, than are migrating here. But the border has seen a rise in people coming from Central America, many of them children on their own, amid the violence in that country.

The Border Patrol union, which negotiates pay, working conditions, benefits and other issues on behalf of Border Patrol personnel, has previously opposed the AFL-CIO's efforts on immigration reform and criticized the Border Patrol commissioner on his policies.

 

[phgreek]

AFL-CIO Urged to Dump Border Patrol Union for Trump Endorsement - NBC News

Suzanne Gamboa
Apr 1, 2016


The Border Patrol union's endorsement of Donald Trump has been met with calls for the AFL-CIO to kick the border guards' union out of its federation.

Hours after the National Border Patrol Council endorsed Trump - its first endorsement in a primary - the immigration activist and anti-deportation group #Not1More had posted a petition online calling for the AFL-CIO to take action.

#Not1More says in a letter to the AFL-CIO published with the online petition that the Border Patrol union's endorsement of the "racist and xenophobic" Trump campaign furthers the council's record of countering the AFL-CIO.

"The National Border Patrol Council's presence in the house of labor has been tolerated for too long," the group said.

A spokesman for the council was not immediately available when contacted by NBC News Latino.

AFL-CIO President Trumka has a pro-immigration reform stance, which includes border security measures. Trumka has argued that keeping millions of workers in the country illegally and continuing with some of the dysfunction in the immigration system is a drag on all American workers' wages.

A spokesman for the AFL-CIO could not be immediately reached for comment. The AFL-CIO is a federation of 56 national and international labor unions representing 12.5 million people, according to its website.

its endorsement, the Border Patrol Council said it was breaking its longstanding practice of not endorsing in primaries by endorsing Trump.

The council called Trump an outsider who has created thousands of jobs, is pledging to bring about change and is "completely independent of special interests."

"We need a person in the White House who doesn't fear the media, who doesn't embrace political correctness, who doesn't need the money, who is familiar with success, who won't bow to foreign dictators, who is pro-military and values law enforcement, and who is angry for America and NOT subservient to the interests of other nations," the group said.

The union cheered Trump's rhetoric and praised him for not backing down on his "bold and necessary" statements made in his campaign.

When he declared he was running for president, Trump said Mexico has been sending Mexicans to the U.S. who are rapists and criminals and who bring drugs He has gone on to call for suspension of immigration by Muslims to the U.S. and made other statements that have been considered offensive or racist.

The U.S. Border Patrol has a number of Hispanic employees. In an annual performance report for fiscal 2014, Customs and Border Protection stated about 39 percent of its armed officers and 50 percent of Border Patrol agents were Hispanic. The support staff also includes Latinos.

The council's Trump endorsement comes at a time when illegal immigration is down and more Mexicans are leaving the U.S., some with their American citizen children, than are migrating here. But the border has seen a rise in people coming from Central America, many of them children on their own, amid the violence in that country.

The Border Patrol union, which negotiates pay, working conditions, benefits and other issues on behalf of Border Patrol personnel, has previously opposed the AFL-CIO's efforts on immigration reform and criticized the Border Patrol commissioner on his policies.

...I missed Xenophobic...but sounds about right.

 

[Buster Bluth]

There is no greater physical or economic threat to Americans today than our open border.

Stunned that border patrol people would say this. Stunned.

My DARE official told me back in the day that drugs were our biggest threat.

A pastor might tell us that "social decay" will be our undoing.

NDgradstudent might mention that ahh never mind we already know..

 

[phgreek]

Stunned that border patrol people would say this. Stunned.

My DARE official told me back in the day that drugs were our biggest threat.

A pastor might tell us that "social decay" will be our undoing.

NDgradstudent might mention that ahh never mind we already know..

OK...your criticism of their claims is kinda reasonable...but I'm guessing criticism for being overly sensitive to issues related to their job is not really the criticism these guys need to worry about...

 

[BleedBlueGold]

For as liberal-minded and progressive as I am, it still has its limits. This is one of them: Exclusive: Twitter to Give All New Parents 20 Weeks of Paid Leave - Fortune

San Fran pushing for all companies in the city to offer 6-weeks paid 100% for businesses over 20 people. San Francisco passes nation's most generous family leave law

I'm all for better benefits in regards to family leave. But I can't totally agree with either of these scenarios. Here are my thoughts. First of all, 5 months off is asinine. I think 8 weeks should be the absolute maximum. I'm good with 100% pay. I think it's great that parts of the U.S. are starting to catch up to the rest of the developed world in their respect for family values. However, lastly, I think holding small businesses with less than 50 employees responsible for this benefit will put way too much strain on the company. I feel the same way about the taxes. Smaller businesses need more support. Not the other way around with big corps getting the relief. I'd be all for a tiered system. Example: Maybe small companies with 20-49 employees offer 4 weeks paid at 75%...50+ employees, 6 weeks paid at 100%. Something like that? What are your thoughts?

IIRC, Bernie is pushing for 12-weeks, 100%. I need to double check that number though. If so, I think 12 is too high, but maybe it's a good starting point for negotiating.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Just contemplating the vile, degrading attacks these folks just signed up for.

I'm guessing because they support Trump, there will be a DOJ inquiry into their treatment of immigrants...surely someone, somewhere can spin a yarn to get a DOJ inquiry...I mean how can these folks come out in support of Trump and not be evil, racist, misogynistic bastards...? What do they know regarding policy, practice, and general goings on near the boarder anyway...

If you are going to support a racist, sexist, lying POS, well, in my mind you deserve everything you get. I'm ALL FOR securing our borders, but you can do that without being a racist asshole. Unfortunately, Trump can't.

 

[dales5050]

I'm good with 100% pay. I think it's great that parts of the U.S. are starting to catch up to the rest of the developed world in their respect for family values.

I think 100% pay is just as bad, if not worse, than 12 weeks of time off. Especially for a small company that is not even pulling a profit. And there are a lot of those in SF. I can move work around and adjust but that costs money.

However, lastly, I think holding small businesses with less than 50 employees responsible for this benefit will put way too much strain on the company. I feel the same way about the taxes. Smaller businesses need more support. Not the other way around with big corps getting the relief. I'd be all for a tiered system. Example: Maybe small companies with 20-49 employees offer 4 weeks paid at 75%...50+ employees, 6 weeks paid at 100%. Something like that?

I think what you're going to see is more is more 'gaming' of the system. So once a company reaches 15-18 employees, they are going to shift to working with contractors rather than employees where they can. This keeps them out of that zone.

I'm all for better benefits in regards to family leave. But I can't totally agree with either of these scenarios. Here are my thoughts. First of all, 5 months off is asinine. I think 8 weeks should be the absolute maximum. What are your thoughts?

I think you're going to see more companies move towards HR policies of unlimited time off. This is for two reasons:

- The primary reason to move towards this is you no longer have to pay out unused personal time when a separation happens. Companies no longer have to carry that liability on their books.

- The secondary reason is that unlimited time off can still be codified as needing to be scheduled and employees are less likely to take the same amount of time off. For example, if you are given 10 personal days you typically take time off in entire days. Need to go run some errands? Take off the entire day. Need to deal with something at the house like a remodel? Take off several days.

With unlimited time, employees take just what they need. If they need to run errands they do that and then return to the office or work from home. But the key thing is they continue their productivity during this.

Couple other thoughts....

- I think it's bull shit to force time off for something specific like having a child. There are many who can't or don't want to have children and they are being excluded.

- While I think the wage gap is a myth, policies like this are only going to expand the gap between what men and women earn when you factor in all of the data. Unless men use this time to an equal level...which really does not happen.

3 months or even 5 months are massive blocks of time at some companies. Especially tech companies. Projects are worked on by those who can work on them. I don't think it's a reach to suggest that someone who takes 3 months off in a large block and then takes the additional time off that's needed to be a parent (it's not like the baby is self sufficient at 6 months) are going to get left behind unless they are key players in the company.

To give an example on this, my company has a mix of employees and contractors. All of our designers are contractors, while our developers are employees. Anyways...we have a book of about 35 clients. At any given time only 4 to 6 accounts will be really active and new accounts come in randomly.

When an account kicks up, it's assigned to a designer and for the life of project that designer is fed the work. If a designer is not there or just has bad luck in availability...they miss out. I think similar things will happen with policies like this at all types of companies.

This is also why men make more.

 

[phgreek]

If you are going to support a racist, sexist, lying POS, well, in my mind you deserve everything you get. I'm ALL FOR securing our borders, but you can do that without being a racist asshole. Unfortunately, Trump can't.

deserve what they get...hmmm

I mean I know as soon as folks hitch their wagon to Trump, they are in for a smear and hate campaign...some complaints are justified, some aren't, but yea, its a predictable response. Thats different than the government getting involved with DOJ...yet I wouldn't be shocked. So to be clear are you ok with DOJ or some other government pressure being exerted on border patrol and their union...

 

[GoIrish41]

Mexicans stand up to Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...e_story.html?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na

 

[BleedBlueGold]

- I think it's bull shit to force time off for something specific like having a child. There are many who can't or don't want to have children and they are being excluded.

- While I think the wage gap is a myth, policies like this are only going to expand the gap between what men and women earn when you factor in all of the data. Unless men use this time to an equal level...which really does not happen.

3 months or even 5 months are massive blocks of time at some companies. Especially tech companies. Projects are worked on by those who can work on them. I don't think it's a reach to suggest that someone who takes 3 months off in a large block and then takes the additional time off that's needed to be a parent (it's not like the baby is self sufficient at 6 months) are going to get left behind unless they are key players in the company.

I'm not sure companies are "forcing time off." Its a benefit to the parents (and child) for the family to be together during the early stages and take the time they need to be a family. No, the baby isn't self sufficient at 6 months, but that's not the point. The early bonding period is important. It's a huge adjustment and we as a country should want the parents to be with their new child for as long as possible before rushing back to work (while sending their kids off to daycare to be raised by someone else). In other countries, men take advantage of this too. It's not just women. Men don't use it in the U.S. because it's extremely rare to have a company offer paid paternity leave as a guaranteed benefit.

Almost every other developed country puts the US to shame when it comes to these types of benefits. I'm not sure how people can legitimately argue against it completely. The overall benefit amount can be negotiated, but having it versus not having it shouldn't be a discussion anymore.

 

[dales5050]

I'm not sure companies are "forcing time off."

Who are you quoting here?

Its a benefit to the parents (and child) for the family to be together during the early stages and take the time they need to be a family. No, the baby isn't self sufficient at 6 months, but that's not the point. The early bonding period is important. It's a huge adjustment and we as a country should want the parents to be with their new child for as long as possible before rushing back to work (while sending their kids off to daycare to be raised by someone else). In other countries, men take advantage of this too. It's not just women. Men don't use it in the U.S. because it's extremely rare to have a company offer paid paternity leave as a guaranteed benefit.

I understand it's a benefit to the child but it's an unequal benefit.

What I don't think your recognizing is the needs and wants of those who are not parents.

Almost every other developed country puts the US to shame when it comes to these types of benefits. I'm not sure how people can legitimately argue against it completely. The overall benefit amount can be negotiated, but having it versus not having it shouldn't be a discussion anymore.

I think having a specific benefit that only some people qualify for should be discussed. Because it's not right.

I think all mandated time off should be equally available and regardless of circumstance. If you want to mandate that someone should have 3 months off to bond with their child...I am all for that. But I think the person who does not have children, for whatever reason, should also be afforded an equal amount of time off.

This would level the playing field for all companies as everyone would need to factor in this time into their budgets and more importantly their pricing. It would also change the culture of companies to remove the stigma of taking time off.

For example, palliative care is a huge issue in the US and it's only growing. While you feel it's important for a parent to have time off to bond with their child in the formative stages I think it's just as important for a child to have time off to bond with their parent in the late stages.