But they are both right about the impracticability of the purported Trump immigration plan. It comes down not to what should be done, not what we wish we could do, but to what's possible. Do I wish we could deport all thirty million illegals, build an impregnable border wall, and make Mexico and Central American countries pay for it? Sure, as much as all of you Tea Party Trumpsters do. But [Chris Christie] is not wrong when he calls Trump's pie-in-the-sky promises of same "simplistic". "Fantasy" would be a better term. I'll say it again: No Congress, not even one filled with 535 Ted Cruz clones, would ever appropriate the hundreds of billions of dollars such a plan would require, not because they necessarily opposed it, but because it couldn't be done. Finding thirty million specific people is hard enough; rounding them all up would be even more difficult because a lot of them would attempt to flee, and the PR optics of hunting them down plus the - what would you call them? Pens? Camps? - in which all those illegals would have to be "detained" - would be unimaginable. And remember: thirty million people. Where could they possibly be kept even if they could all be rounded up? Where would the feds find that many law enforcement personnel? How long would it take? These details matter. And if we've learned anything about Donald Trump over the past couple of months, it's that details are not his thing. Which makes perfect sense if you're nothing but a demagogue and a Donk plant attempting to lead astray a large segment of the Republican base and make them and the party look like the worst leftwing stereotypes of conservatives ever conceived in order to make the queen of the Clinton Crime Family look "moderate" and "reasonable". [bolded emphases added]
- Me, five days ago
Hillary Clinton, today:
Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton once again took aim at her Republican rivals Friday afternoon, accusing them during a press conference of wanting to round up illegal [alien]s and throw them in trains.
[Mrs.] Clinton was asked by a reporter how she would handle the millions of illegal [alien]s currently in the country. “Well, I’m glad you asked me that,” she responded. “Because I know that there are some on the other side who are seriously advocating to deport [thirty] million people who are working here.”
A lot of them, of course, are NOT working.
She continued, saying it was “the height of irony that a party which espouses small government would want to unleash a massive law enforcement effort – including perhaps National Guard and others....
Posse Comitatus Act, anybody?
....to go and literally pull people out of their homes and their workplaces, round them up, put them, I don’t know, in buses, boxcars, in order to take them across our border.”
Would she have said this anyway, even about practical steps like actually rescinding Obamnesty, enforcing the immigration laws on the books, enhancing border barriers, and deporting those illegals that we can without trying to make a PR nightmare spectacle out of it? Of course. She'd say it about Bush III and Rubio, for heaven's sake, and they're amnesty marks. She'll say it about whatever Republican makes it out of this ridiculously overpopulated mess of a field. She's saying it now - just as with the "Republicans are worse than ISIS for women" slur from yesterday - because her campaign is cratering and she needs to create any distraction she can from the scandal anchors that are dragging it down to the same grave in which her 2008 bid landed. Eventually, if she won the Democrat nomination, she'd keep right on with the nuclear scorched-earth carpet-bombing because it's her only viable strategy - she can't inspire and she can't bamboozle, so she has to make the campaign so negative and toxic so as to digustedly turn off so many voters into staying home that she can win a very low-turnout base vs. base election.
But there's no reason why any of our candidates have to help lend credence to what should be her filthbag charges. And yet that is precisely what Trumpmania has done, and all in phony-baloney, plastic banana service to a "plan" that is functionally impossible. Or "all pain, no gain".
And you wonder why I call Trump Hillary's Trojan Horse.
The media Q & A came to a screeching (literally) halt when Mrs. Clinton made the frankly stunning mistake of dipping her royal scepter in Ed Henry's direction again:
ED HENRY: Secretary Clinton, I wonder if I could ask you a couple of questions. One would be — were you aware — were you aware — thank you. Were you aware that your husband wanted to give paid speeches to repressive regimes like North Korea? Do you have any comment on these new emails that raise questions about conflict of interest involving your aide, Huma Abedin? And finally, I wonder — you said there’s nothing unique about this situation. You’ve said this before. Can you name one other Cabinet secretary who had their own server?
[MRS.] CLINTON: Well, let me answer one of your questions because I think that’s what you are entitled to. [emphasis added]
Nothing haughty, imperial, or disdainful about that attitude, is there? And just imagine, folks: this is how she treats her friends.
But then, we already know how she treats her enemies, don't we? And at the rate she's going, the latter is going to far outnumber the former.
No comments:
Post a Comment