Replies

Thanks. I don’t mind reading the candidate’s websites at all. I do retain more information by hearing than reading, though, so my preference is interviews.

And keep in mind that not everyone has access to a computer, can’t afford one, and many of the elderly may not know how to operate one.

So it’s just basic for candidates to clearly articulate their positions and explain in their own words how they’ll carry out their plans any time they can get the airtime.

Of course, most interviews don’t last long, and when pressed at the end, candidates usually do say go to their website for more info.

That’s all good.

But I still prefer to hear it from their own lips for reasons stated. And there’s no reason for them not to be able to explain in their own words.

Well, the problem is twofold: To the majority of voters, Trump (or any other candidate) can’t come across as unlikable or cold. He’s already slammed as racist and worse, so he has to spend a lot of time on seeming nice and caring even while stressing “legal”, and even if the details of his policies (ie., his immigration paper) are not necessarily so nice to the illegal immigrants (and some legal ones, too.)

The other problem is that something like a position paper of necessity has to be rather too long for most public “talk” sorts of situations. One of my problems with Trump’s position on immigration is that I’d prefer his paper be about 3x longer, to more clearly spell out more of how his proposals would get done. For example, I have ideas on how to ensure that pay to work visa holders is at the level(s) US citizens would receive or have received (if not slightly higher). But, NO candidate discusses it.

If I was Trump or Cruz, I’d send my immigration plan to targeted voters in just the groups you describe.

In the end, though, what we need as a candidate is another Reagan. “The Great Communicator”. He was terrific. Unfortunately, none has turned up.

BTW, if I seemed a little harsh on you, I apologize. It's just very frustrating that so often, the right questions do not get asked of our candidates. In all fairness, I DO have many questions for Mr. Trump. A very few of them are, concerning immigration:

Mr. Trump, last July (2015), you said on CNN:

"I want to move them (illegal immigrants) out, and we're going to move them back in, and let them be legal, but they have to be in here legally. ...Otherwise, you don't have a country. You don't have a country, if people can just pour into the country illegally, you don't have a country, but I would expedite the system.

Are you proposing a process where former illegal immigrants can re-enter the US legally ahead of persons already in the legal process? Or do people who have been and are following the present legal process get preference, or does no one get preference?

Mr. Trump, in your immigration position paper you call for "Immigration moderation" to "allow record immigration levels to subside to more moderate historical averages."

To clarify, and given the employment situation in the US, do you believe current legal caps in immigration from other countries are too high, too low, or about right?

Mr. Trump, in your immigration position paper you state under the heading "Immigration moderation": "Before any new green cards are issued to foreign workers abroad, there will be a pause where employers will have to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed immigrant and native workers. This will help reverse women's plummeting workplace participation rate, grow wages, and allow record immigration levels to subside to more moderate historical averages."

Can you give us some sort of target numbers to define how much the US employment situation would have to improve, before this pause in immigration was rescinded?

One other thing: I have found out the hard way, in life, repeatedly (until it got through my thick skull!*), that going by what people say, at one time or another, well spoken or not, is a good way to get into trouble, fast. If I have absolute trust in someone, then, yes, their word is good enough for me. But, otherwise, and certainly any politician fits into "otherwise", one MUST "get it in writing". This is true in business or most any legal matter, really. Not doing so has cost me terribly in the past, and probably resulted in me having 1/4 to 1/2 the "wealth" I'd otherwise have now, to take care of my family, and so on. Even then, once you "have it in writing", one must evaluate the person you are "contracting" with. Oversimplifying, this boils down to "Do they have a history of "delivering the goods" as promised?"

In this context, Trump, as an executive, looks pretty good, tho' certainly not flawless. With Cruz, it's more like "huh?".

This is certainly not the only consideration, but, it is a very significant one.

My biggest concerns with Trump are in the area of personal freedom. He's screwed up about the San Bernardino shooter's cell phone, for example. That's understandable, if he was watching friends die, on 911, but, I really wish he'd talk to the woman in CA who's husband, I think it was, died in the S.B. shooting, and yesterday(?) she was interviewed regarding the Apple vs. FBI dispute. I was very impressed that she could see the privacy concerns regarding the FBI's desires...

It does no good to go after an evil now, by creating what could, no, will, without iron-clad safeguards, grow into a greater monster later. Can Trump think ahead decades, or generations?