It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

US-Mexico Rancher yearns for Trump wall Hillery's and Trumps' response (editoral)

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   


The 77-year-old, a fifth-generation rancher on the Arizona border with Mexico, says he has grown weary of seeing drug smugglers -- rather than just cattle -- on his ranch and a wall is the answer to his troubles.

Clinton's take on this story: How does HE know they are smuggling drugs? We need to allow these undocumented workers to come out of the shadows, our borders are fine, we need to document these workers. Well just the other day I talked to Maria and her mom passed away trying to cross the Arizona border. What a brave little girl I found out that.......

Trump's take on the story: We are here to secure our borders, we need to know who is entering our country and no one will enter unless they are properly vetted.






"I live in a no-man's land. I live in a land that is occupied by the Sinaloa drug cartel," he sighed, pointing to mountains on his ranch where he said scouts equipped with sophisticated equipment are posted as lookouts for smugglers.

Clinton's take on this story:How does he know they are scouts for smugglers? We need to get these undocumented workers out of the shadows.

Trump's take on the story: We will take our border back, our wall and other measures will stop this invasion from our southern border. And I will do it fast, I have beautiful buildings all over the world, the Chinese love me, the Arab Eremites love me, I will get it done, FAST.







Chilton -- who keeps a gun holstered on his hip, a rifle by his front door and a pistol by his bedside -- added that he and other ranchers are also in favor of beefed up security in remote border areas as extremist groups like Islamic State (IS) may be using them to slip operatives into the United States.

Clinton's take on this story: (thinks to herself; he is a racist and a gun nut, hope no gun show loop holes were used to have those guns, maybe a serial # on each round of ammo would make sure he doesn't do something crazy with that arsenal.) What we need is immigration reform to allow these people a chance a the American dream. Together we can make it happen. Why just the other day I was talking to Markus and his dad lost his eye sight crossing the border at.......

Trump's take on the story: The wall and other measures are going to keep the illegals out, out, we have to know who is coming into our county. You need to protect yourself and your loved one, but this will change when I am president. And I can build the wall, I have just completed in taking a terrific post office and turning it into the best Hotel in Washington. It's right down the road from the white house. Under budget and on time. On time. I will be able to keep an eye on it come November. Oh did I mention Mexico is paying the wall? They will, they will. I am so fast that.......


www.yahoo.com...

edit on 28-10-2016 by seasonal because: source

edit on 28-10-2016 by seasonal because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
This thread has fallacy written all over it.

The whole "Trump response good, Hillary response bad," had me laughing though albeit it was blatantly biased and honestly serves no purpose other than to continue to perpetuate the myth that Clinton/Trump are "enemies."

You completely fabricated and made up both a hypothetical response from both parties.... and in said fabricated hypothetical response, your bias came through like the sun on a winter day.

Before the cultists jump up to assume I'm a Clinton supporter - what is the point of this thread? You - OP - do realize that you've completely fabricated this, correct?



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: RomeByFire

The responses are a collected from debates, campaign speeches and other appearances. And of course there editorialized. Should i put this in a different forum?



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: RomeByFire

The responses are a collected from debates, campaign speeches and other appearances. And of course there editorialized. Should i put this in a different forum?


Then you should provide links to the sources of these responses.

Because what I just read as your Clinton responses is just your inner voice corrupted with alt-Right propaganda.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

Not a right ringer, I did take editorial license with the post.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: RomeByFire

The responses are a collected from debates, campaign speeches and other appearances. And of course there editorialized. Should i put this in a different forum?


Then you should provide links to the sources of these responses.

Because what I just read as your Clinton responses is just your inner voice corrupted with alt-Right propaganda.


And what about your blatant alt-left propaganda? Do I have to link your threads? Do you get a pass because you don't do your research and simply parrot the party line?


Cheers - Dave



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

Take a breath, you do understand what editorializing means?

I have no dog in the Clinton/Trump fight. Most of the responses are well known go to talking points from both candidates.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   
This thread is just one more in the long line of reasons we need to rethink the political mud pit forum.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: RomeByFire

The responses are a collected from debates, campaign speeches and other appearances. And of course there editorialized. Should i put this in a different forum?


Then you should provide links to the sources of these responses.

Because what I just read as your Clinton responses is just your inner voice corrupted with alt-Right propaganda.


And what about your blatant alt-left propaganda? Do I have to link your threads? Do you get a pass because you don't do your research and simply parrot the party line?


Cheers - Dave


If you see me post a thread without a source, go ahead and call me on it.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
A real HRC wouldn't have ONLY deflected by appealing to humanitarian impulses, but would have also supplied statistics and something like "The Humitarian World Organization says 60% of these people are children and only 7% are smugglers or criminals, exactly what we expect from any general population. So no Trump, they're not mostly rapists and smugglers, they're children, mothers and job seekers who're simply looking for a better life."

You're trying to cast Hillary as weak and appealing only to the hurt children and mothers, and Trump as the heroic bringer of law and order. YOu appeal more to stereotypes than you do the reality, IMHO.

BUT I got a good laugh. And I'll confess I rarely hear Trump talk about the children or the families or the hard workers who serve as a backbone to our economy. Trump himself has hired undocumented workers. If he gave this more thought and time in his speeches, he'd get a lot more support, but he doesn't because it'd distract from his tough border security stance.
edit on 10/28/2016 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

Just 7% huh.

There is a way to legally come to the US. When that is not followed and we have people who stay over on their work/student visas, this can lead to big problems. As we saw in Sept. 2001.

Just like handling classified e-mails our leaders to insure defined protocols are followed.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: jonnywhite

Just 7% huh.

There is a way to legally come to the US. When that is not followed and we have people who stay over on their work/student visas, this can lead to big problems. As we saw in Sept. 2001.

Just like handling classified e-mails our leaders to insure defined protocols are followed.

I think a link better says it than myself:
www.washingtonpost.com - Alabama tried a Donald Trump-style immigration law. It failed in a big way....

Trump is just playing to common insecurities. I don't actually believe his planned policies would ever fly in reality if he's elected. And yet he deserves some credit tapping into these insecurities to get votes. It might have failed outside of his conservative base, but it's consistent with his past business dealings where he used every loophole to keep taxes low.
edit on 10/28/2016 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite



The Byrds conceded that the agriculture sector suffered after some immigrants fled the state. “Most of them left and didn’t come back,” said Terry Darring-Rogers, who works at a Mobile law firm specializing in immigration.

He means the agriculture sector suffered $ loss. min wage/Cheap/under the table labor was hard to fine.




“Illegals have stepped up and they’ve said, ‘We’ll do that work,’ ” Merrill said. “But some of those jobs used to be performed by people in the lower economic strata of our communities. We want to make sure that every American who wants to work has a job.”

Sounds about right.




The backlash was massive — a legal assault that chipped away at the law, and a political campaign that made Republicans own its consequences. Business groups blamed the tough measures for scaring away capital and for an exodus of workers that hurt the state’s agriculture industry. After Mitt Romney lost the 2012 presidential election, strategists in his own party blamed his support for the Alabama attrition policy. Those critics included Donald Trump.

So far all I can see is that it is bad for business, that isn't a reason to keep illegal immigrant in the country. Sorry if the farmers have to pay a little more. Look at a documentary called fair tomatoes, if you want to see how the farm workers are really treated, because they can be, they can't complain, they are illegal. Because a business won't be able to break the law to harvest food isn't a good reason to keep the status quo.

When a farmer pays 1 cent for 80 pounds of tomatoes to be picked. The cost of those tomatoes don't cover the social cost like schools, hospitals, police, social services, etc. The farmer gets to pay little to illegals to pick and the taxpayer picks up the all the social costs. Great system.




posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal

Clinton's take on this story: (thinks to herself; he is a racist and a gun nut, hope no gun show loop holes were used to have those guns, maybe a serial # on each round of ammo would make sure he doesn't do something crazy with that arsenal.)


Wow. Didn't know you could actually read the minds of what other people are thinking too!!!

Amazing.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: eNumbra
This thread is just one more in the long line of reasons we need to rethink the political mud pit forum.


Maybe, but it does make a nice place for the real morons to openly expose themselves by posting really stupid sh*t for everyone to see and read for themselves.

I find it much easier to locate the trollz this way actually.

It's like having a sign up list where trollz knowingly sign their name and give an example of why they are trollz.

Take it away and we'll have to weed them out like the old days.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Lol fallacy? You literally just projected that. OP never said Trump is right and Clinton is wrong he simply posted an editorial of both there collective speeches

But, thanks for you're confirmation on what everybody already knew.
edit on 28-10-2016 by ssenerawa because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ssenerawa

My post is to show the simple fact that we are in a cult of personality. Although I am more closely aligned with Trump, I haven't decided who I will vote for. If you can't see the candidates saying the things that are written, it's OK. It's my opinion and you know what they say about opinions, they are like as......

With all the legal things swirling around HRC, I find it hard to support her. I would imagine if your dentist had even a small amount of trouble that the HCR had you'd fire him.
Trump is full of himself, maybe he's earned it. He is successful, he didn't do well in the debates, but neither did HRC.

I really don't like our choices, but I find comfort that large corps, wallstreet and the status quo (HRC is one of them) is pi$$ing their pants. If Trump wins we will see if the pi$$ing is indeed warranted.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: RomeByFire

The responses are a collected from debates, campaign speeches and other appearances. And of course there editorialized. Should i put this in a different forum?


Then you should provide links to the sources of these responses.

Because what I just read as your Clinton responses is just your inner voice corrupted with alt-Right propaganda.


And what about your blatant alt-left propaganda? Do I have to link your threads? Do you get a pass because you don't do your research and simply parrot the party line?


Cheers - Dave


If you see me post a thread without a source, go ahead and call me on it.


I don't have a correct the record database of everyone's comments to look up information easily, I have to do it manually and it's not worth my time ;-)

Cheers - Dave



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm



Wow. Didn't know you could actually read the minds of what other people are thinking too!!

One word, editorial.
edit on 28-10-2016 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: mOjOm

One word, editorial.


Editorial
noun
a newspaper article written by or on behalf of an editor that gives an opinion on a topical issue.
make believe.
Bullsh*t





top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join