It’s funny to watch the stupidity and ignorance of the Trump worshippers over and over again.
Do you people have no shame contradicting yourselves to falsely prop-up the charlatan that is Trump?
Intellectual dishonesty at its finest. Trump gave a HORRIBLE answer in the debate on this issue. It wasn’t “confusing”. It was Trump talking out his ass again forgetting for a moment what his talking points were given by his people. Then he “rights” the ship by doing a 180 and giving Breitbart a completely different set of answers after the debate.
Trump tells people what they want to hear depending on the audience. And some of you have bought it hook, line, and sinker.
As for Rubio, sucks to be him. Someone should tell Rubio that he should go give a speech where he calls out the Gang of 8 as his worst mistake ever and that his decision to support a pathway to citizenship for illegals in the past was boneheaded. If Trump can get away with comments like being pro-single payer, pro-Kelo, liberal on social issues, and contradicting his own hardline approach on immigration, then reasoning says the others should too. But we know if Rubio tried that, people wouldn’t buy it because of his history. Yet Trump’s history doesn’t matter.
Donald Trump rules! Will you vote for him if he gets to run against Hillary? Or will you sit it out?
This would be more persuasive to people who are generally ignorant about Trump and politics. I've watched the race closely and have seen no evidence of this. On the other hand, I do know lots of butt hurt Ted Cruz supporters who have been pushing this lie from day one-- who, by the way, have their own difficulties when it comes to Ted Cruz's provable lies about his amnesty support:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/ted_cruz_vs_donald_trump_whos_stronger_on_immigration.html
http://www.kausfiles.com/2015/05/21/cruz-and-amnesty-round-ii-the-telltale-video/
"And I’d like to make a final point to those advocacy groups that are very engaged in this issue and rightly concerned about addressing our immigration system, and in particular about addressing the situation for the 11 million who are currently in the shadows. If this amendment is adopted to the current bill the effect would be that those 11 million under this current bill would still be eligible for RPI status.** They would still be eligible for legal status and indeed under the terms of the bill they would be eligible for LPR status as well, so that they are out of the shadows, which the proponents of this bill repeatedly point to as their principle objective — to provide a legal status for those who are here illlegally to be out of the shadows. This amendment would allow that to happen …
And a second point to those advocacy groups that are so passionately engaged. In my view if this committee rejects this amendment, and I think everyone here views it as quite likely this committee will choose to reject this amendment, in my view that decision will make it much, much more likely that this entire bill will fail in the House of Representantives. I don’t want immigration reform to fail. I want immigration reform to pass, and so I would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle, if the objective is to pass common sense immigration reform that secures the borders, that improves legal immigration, and that allows those who are here illegally to come in out of the shadows, then we should look for areas of bipartisan agreement and compromise to come together and this amendment — I believe if this amendment were to pass the chances of this bill passing into law would increase dramatically, and so I would urge the committee to give it full consideration and to adopt the amendment."
Ya know, you might have more leverage in your persuasions ( although I doubt it)
...if you didn’t insult those who you seemingly want to convert.
Now there is a good way to win a political discussion, start by throwing a bomb over the wall.
It's even funnier to watch stupid and ignorant jerks insult thousands of people that they are trying to change perspectives.
With respect, I think your criticisms of Trump are exaggerated.
I was familiar with what Trump had said on the issue before the debate. When he was asked the visa question it was readily apparent to me that he misunderstood the question.
He was confusing two separate but very close issues: retaining highly skilled, creative and dynamic foreigners who graduate from American universities with special promise that can benefit America, and the issuance of visas to foreigners when Americans are available to do the same job.
I realized immediately he had made the mistake. Afterwards, he corrected the mistake.
More generally, and again I do say this with respect, I think there is an element of cultural bias at work in the hatred of Trump, just as there was toward Sarah Palin.
Sarah had her own particular background and ways of expressing herself which made a lot of folks not even listen to what she was saying.
I think to some extent Trump’s New York City brashness and his telegraphic manner of expressing himself is a barrier for many folks.