Coulter savages Trump


Trump’s tweet here is interesting to me, particularly the word “innocent”:

Just out: The big deal, very mysterious Don jr telephone calls, after the innocent Trump Tower meeting, that the media & Dems said were made to his father (me), were just conclusively found NOT to be made to me. They were made to friends & business associates of Don. Really sad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 1, 2019

If he means “innocent” in the legal sense, that Don Jr didn’t technically break the law, then that seems plausible.

But if he means “innocent” in a broader moral sense, that is, that Don Jr did nothing at all morally suspect when he responded “I love it” to an email saying Putin is in Trump’s corner, and with an offer to collude with a hostile foreign power to win the election, and then proceeded to systematically and shamefully lie about the affair until it was absolutely proven that he was lying…


Shows just what kind of people we’re dealing with here.


I’m actually impressed that you do see it. I’m not exaggerating when I say that 9/10 people who hear me say I like Bernie and Trump are mystified - much like when I said I liked Ron Paul and Donald Trump.

I’ve long believed there are multiple good and bad ways to do anything. And I’m not convinced that moderately Left or Right political systems are clearly better than the other. They do produce different outcomes, but I think populist governments working for the majority of their voters perform better whether Left or Right than do governments operating for the benefit of a few thousand people closely connected to the people in government.

I have a degree of trust in Jim Jordan or Alexandria Cortez that I do not, and can never have in Orin Hatch or Diane Feinstein.

There are only a few people in Washington I have mixed feelings on. Which are people like Chuck Grassley and Joe Biden. They’re more D.C. snake than anything, but they retain some element of humanity. For them… I guess ideology plays a bigger role.

But I’ll take someone actually fighting for their voters and beliefs over a calculating beltway insider regardless of any current mainstream ideology.

Right now 0 people are fighting for the wall - including Trump. No, I’m not expecting Bernie to vote for the wall - why would I? That was never his signature issue.

Bernie is still better on immigration than most politicians in either party. So what I see if 2020 comes around with no wall:

Trump wins: We don’t get a wall - but Trump complains about it
Bernie wins: We don’t get a wall - Bernie never talks about it again

I didn’t vote for Trump to air grievances. If he can’t get it done - then he gets no credit for it.

My problem here is that Ann Coulter is 100% right. Trump doesn’t need Congressional funding. There is no wall being built because Trump is unwilling to do it. Maybe it’s because he’s following bad political advice. Maybe it’s another reason. But he’s choosing not to do it now. If he hasn’t even started by 2020, he will never start. Fool me, but you can’t get fooled again.


He said “I love it” to the assertion that this so-called Russian attorney was going to provide him with dirt on Hillary. If someone had offered it to me, I’d have said, “I love it”, too…and so would Hillary if the roles were reversed. It (the meeting) was innocent in that nothing was proffered concerning Hillary at all. Instead, all that was discussed was the adoption of unwanted Russian children by American couples and how this Russian “attorney” could make a buck facilitating them.


So, just to set the stage for the coming year - if it can be conclusively proved that a campaign for president worked with foreign intelligence to gather information on their opponent - you consider this to be “collusion” and consider it morally reprehensible, correct?


LOL. J Anderson either won’t answer this or he’ll deflect. Answering in the affirmative means that he would find the Democrat campaign for president in 2016 was BOTH “collusion” AND morally reprehensible, which would blow holes in their Russian collusion meme towards President Trump and sink all hopes of impeaching him for it.


Any campaign of sufficient integrity would avoid working with foreign governments to win an election, and if foreign governments were to approach that campaign offering collusion, then it seems to me that the proper course of action for any citizen with a drop of patriotism would be to immediately contact the FBI. Especially if the country in question is the primary geopolitical foe of the United States. If we were a politically sane country, then collusion of this sort would be grounds for impeachment.


First of all, the very term “collusion” is a smokescreen. OUR laws do NOT prevent foreigners from helping to elect someone in the U.S. as long as they don’t donate money to a campaign or filter money through a third party to help finance a campaign. If you want to see an example of ILLEGAL “collusion” in an election, you need look no further than Obama’s giving OUR tax money to finance those opposing the election of the current administration in Israel. If the Russians wanted to “interfere” in or election in 2016, all they had to do was give cash to Hillary and other Democrats running, and/or give the DNC and the Hillary campaign “dirt” (real or invented) on Donald Trump—which they most assuredly DID. There is no evidence whatsoever that they did ANYTHING to aid in the election of Hillary’s opponent, however. Our own “intelligence” agencies CLAIM that they “interfered” in the election…and then added, “to help Trump win.” Yet, they’ve offered NO evidence as to how they did that.

We KNOW that several foreign entities successfully hacked Hillary’s illegal server, e-mails and unsecured devices…very likely including Russia. After Hillary deleted those 30,000 subpoenaed e-mails–again illegally–candidate Trump opined that perhaps we could find them if Russia would help out. For that off-the-cuff remark, the Democrats claim that Trump “openly and blatantly asked Russia to help,” which is pure, unadulterated Bulls**t.


Yes, really. They lost virtually no industrial capacity to China after they joined the WTO, they’re unemployment rate is low and has kept dropping even after accepting the migrants.

and despite having next to free college in some of their states, they have less attendance and graduation than we do, because the skills taught in high school are viewed as sufficient by most people there.

High School does its job in Germany, getting the bulk of people involved with trade skills. Meanwhile we overpay for college to act as remedial high school.

Yes, whatever other faults they have, they clearly focused on the right thing here.


Forgive me; I don’t just mean the wall. In actual policy, Bernie follows Democrat prescriptions. He puts shared humanity of the migrants above whatever economic misgivings he has.

He wants to allow illegals to remain, extend a path to citizenship, and wants to accept refugees:

America has always been a haven for the oppressed. We cannot and must not shirk the historic role of the United States as a protector of vulnerable people fleeing persecution.

Heck, he wants to shut down many of the facilities we use to deport people.


Where did I ever say that Germany “lost industrial capacity?” I said no such thing. Germany has always been very good at engineering. Most of the nuclear scientists that helped develop the first atomic bombs were German refugees, for Pete’s sake! Germany is fast becoming another welfare state and there’s no denying it. Gangs of Syrian “refugees” are roaming German cities raping and robbing almost at will. Why do you think the far-right is growing in leaps and bounds there as is a resurgence of the Nazis. BOTH groups are reacting to the social CHAOS these so-called “refugees” are bringing. Violent opposition is less than 5 years away.


Germany is paying a heavy price for accepting these refugees. A lot of them are not cuddly woman and children but full-grown men with few labor skills, little knowledge of the language, a culture that holds western values in contempt and no desire to assimilate or get more job skills.

They put pressure on the social services. Even if you put them on welfare, that income is not enough. They see others living better. Since they have no skills to get decent paying jobs, They get jealous and angry which prompts them to commit crimes. The worst of them are there to commit acts of terror.

Immigration has worked when the immigrants have an ability and a desire to assimilate into our culture, at least the level when they can earn a living. It’s perfectly okay for immigrants to practice their culture at home. In fact some aspects of their food, music and arts might become part of the fabric of their adopted country. That is great when it works.

A nation can’t take everyone who wishes to immigrate. The social services are not funded well enough to cope with that. The process has to be controlled, and there needs to some screening to keep undesirable people, with bad intentions, out of the country. A government owes that to its citizens. We are under no obligation to take criminals and terrorists.

The open border people can’t even accept that compromise. It seems that they are ready to accept the criminals and the terrorists with open arms. If there is no comprise possible, then it’s useless to have a debate with them.


I’m not talking about engineering.

You can have good engineers, but poor markets. That was the Soviet Union.

Germany finds ways to massively proliferate trade skills among its people. It does this better than we do.

It then funds Translational research so that small-medium companies have high-end products to make, put together by those workers.

It means as close to “everyone” as you can possibly get, has work to do, and skills to do it with.
Which is a much better answer than just arguing about prices or wages.

It’s pro-growth, at the level of the individual.


None here, you’re not stuffing a straw man, by chance?

The point is that immigration doesn’t harm employment. Or, in the long-term, wages.

Because, immigrants drive labor demand. It’s for the same reason ATMs didn’t do in bank tellers.

This has been tested across the OECD nations, Economists have been pointing it out for years.
As the immigration rate rises, employment and wages among natives go up.


You are not an open border person???

That’s funny and totally dishonest. You won’t even agree to the proposal that we should take steps to prevent criminals and terrorists from coming into this country. Will you do now or just ignore the point?


Is Barry Goldwater?

I’ve asked you this 3 times now. Unless you’re willing to say it of him, it’s you who is being dishonest.


Note that you still won’t address the crime and terrorism issue, which means you either don’t care about it or you have lost the argument about that issue and have chosen to ignore it.

As liberal, you probably have no use for Barry Goldwater, other than for using him for you position on open borders.


Which I addressed in the last thread 3 times over.

And numerous times before that.

Thus a straw man remains a straw man.


You answer nothing. I went to your link. You want no restrictions on terrorism and criminal behavior with respect to immigration. You could confirm your position with a simple statement, but you won’t do it because you don’t want any of weaknesses in you open border position exposed.

You and Nancy Pelosi have the same position. I’ve debated this issue with you extensively, and it’s waste of time. You won’t negotiate on anything, not even public safety with respect to criminality. You have taken an amoral position on this issue. I will not respond to you directly on it any more.


Nope, pretty sure I did. Vetting is a restriction.

You don’t ask real questions, you posture and get offended.

Grow some skin, and ask a real question.


Okay, I understand your position.

It’s okay to let criminals and terrorists into the country because “Natural Law” says they have right to be here to do whatever they want. There is your position in simple language.