Gatsby

Polls you say, Go Ahead and "bet the farm" on the polls that you worship!

Not a single one of the well known polling aggregators/predictors picked Brexit in their last-minute final projections.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/brexit_yet_another_example_of_biased_polling.html#ixzz4IXSLfvN9

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Personally I hope they continue to believe them!!!

kenjay Loc: Arkansas

Oh they will Linda it is the only hope they have.

Big Bass

I can't find anything anywhere that Coulter has been made a laughing-stock. You are another lyin' loony-lib.

waltmoreno

Here. Let me help you. I just googled Ann Coulter and this was the first entry. And BTW, I'm not a lib. I'm a Cruz guy.

"Sympathy for the devil in Prada

By Daniel W. Drezner August 26
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and a regular contributor to PostEverything.

Let’s put some cards on the table: I’m not a fan of Ann Coulter. I think her shtick was played out a decade ago. With each passing season, Coulter’s desperate efforts to stay in the news by uttering ever more outrageous statements tipped over into full-blown bigotry a loooong time ago...

It’s her new book about Donald Trump I want to talk about, however, because it highlights a nightmare scenario that any academic or nonfiction book author should recognize.

Writing a book takes prodigious amounts of effort and time. The amount of time can be divided into the years it takes to write and revise and revise and revise and revise and revise the book and the months it takes to publish it.

If one is writing a book about current affairs, that second part is the worst. Even for best-selling authors, there is a period of time between when one is done with the writing and when the book comes out. For academics, that gap between writing and publishing can be a year or longer. During that time, things can happen that completely subvert a book’s arguments. I was pretty sure I was right when I wrote “The System Worked,” for example, but in the eight months between handing in the final draft and the book’s arrival in stores, I was petrified that the WTO would dissolve or the IMF would fall apart and I’d go down as the Norman Angell of my time.

The reason I bring up this dilemma for book authors is that Ann Coulter writes the following words on page 3 of her new book about how Trump is awesome: “there’s nothing Trump can do that won’t be forgiven. Except change his immigration policies.”

Given Trump’s gyrations on immigration this week, this is such an unfortunate sentence. It leads to sad headlines like, “Trump Betrayal of Ann Coulter Timed Perfectly to Release of Ann Coulter Book About Always Trusting Trump” and sad pictures of Coulter steeling herself to give book talks and angry Coulter tweets at Trump:

So, to sum up: Ann Coulter has had a book come out this week about how Trump is awesome, built on a thesis that Trump managed to eviscerate just as the book was released.

Like Rush Limbaugh (words I never thought I would type in that order), my first reaction upon hearing that sentence was to be expected:


Watching Coulter go through the five stages of grief in the span of 24 hours has also been a gift from the schadenfreude gods.

Yet as Coulter has finally arrived at the realization that she can’t abandon Trump, I can’t fully commit to savoring her discomfort. As a fellow author, I still feel some small measure of sympathy for her. I have a book coming out in nine months that is about 90 percent finished. I think my book is better than Coulter’s, but no author should be so arrogant as to think that their premises won’t be undercut between the writing and the publishing.


Right now, as I type these words, Coulter is currently experiencing every nonfiction author’s nightmare. In many ways, it couldn’t happen to a more deserving person. But it also shows that it can happen. Much like the graduate student who goes to sleep petrified that a senior scholar will publish a better version of their thesis before they complete their dissertation, I will fret over the next nine months that I will experience Coulter’s sad fate."

441 Comments
Share on FacebookShare
Share on TwitterTweet
Share via Email

Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and a regular contributor to PostEverything. Follow @dandrezner

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

His opinion is not making her the laughing stock, other than his attempt to do so...

Big Bass

441 comments out of the U.S. population? You are the laughing-stock.

kenjay Loc: Arkansas

Well he did earn that distinction.

waltmoreno

Ok all you Trumpbots. Call it whatever you want. Ann Coulter's new book entitled "In Trump we Trust", just came out. The major premise of the book is, as professor Drezner, points out is on page 3, where she wrote, "“there’s nothing Trump can do that won’t be forgiven. Except change his immigration policies.”

Are you with me so far?

So Trump backed away from his previously declared signature-issue immigration policy (on the same day that Coulter's book came out) and now he essentially embraces amnesty - exactly like Marco Rubio had advocated.

As proof of how Trump's flip-flops are undermining even his most ardent supporters, just google, "In Trump we Trust". It's filled with entries from mainstream media about the betrayal. Here's the first entries that just came up 1 minute ago.

News about In Trump We Trust
bing.com/news
Donald Trump Spoils Ann Coulter's 'In Trump We Trust' Book Launch

The Huffington Post · 1 day ago
Ann Coulter’s new book is called “In Trump We Trust,” but the conservative pundit might already be regretting that title. “There’s nothing Trump can …

Trump's immigration pivot a buzz kill for Coulter's book tour
CNN Money · 22 hours ago
Except change his immigration policies," Coulter wrote in her new tome, "In Trump We Trust." Coulter's Trump …
In Trump We Trust.

freethoughtblogs.com · 1 day ago
“In Trump We Trust.” Yes, that’s really the title of Ann Coulter’s latest book, a paean to what she calls the great …
Ann Coulter flips out over Trump’s immigration flip-flop ...

www.salon.com/2016/08/25/ann-coulter-flips-out-on-trumps...
Aug 25, 2016 · Thursday, Aug 25, 2016 12:02 PM UTC Ann Coulter flips out over Trump’s immigration flip-flop as she releases new book, “In Trump We Trust
Ann Coulter's New Book, 'In Trump We Trust,' Comes Out ...

The Atlantic
1 day ago
Donald Trump has just betrayed Ann Coulter. Which is a dangerous thing to do. This week, Coulter released her new book, In Trump We Trust. As the title suggests, it ...

I already know the response of all you die-hard Trump robots. It'll be that all these publishers are just fringe groups and it'll all end with your robotic "Goooo Trump". It's tiresome. There's just no reasoning with robots like you.

kenjay Loc: Arkansas

kenjay Loc: Arkansas

Sounds like you want him to flop back and depot you.

SalMarDib Loc: Fly over country

Sure the rhetoric has changed a bit but I think the basic premise of DJT's immigration stance has remained constant. He still wants to follow current immigration law. Current immigration law says criminals are to be deported. He is not against legal immigration. A big mass deportation may not happen. Securing the borders and building a wall probably will. What I think the left doesn't understand about DJT is the right supports his policies. We don't just follow him blindly. DJT is the messenger not the message.

waltmoreno

Exactly what you'd expect to hear from a Trumpbot loyalist. "Trump's newly revised immigration plan isn't really amnesty."
That's what ALL politicians say.
Here's the latest: Straight off the press. "Trump is the 9th member of the Gang of 8".

IMMIGRATION WATCHDOG: TRUMP IS '9TH MEMBER OF GANG OF 8'
'Every politician pushing an amnesty says it's not really an amnesty'
GREG COROMBOS
news director for Radio America.

A leading amnesty foe is blasting Donald Trump for moving far away from his earlier proposal on how to handle the millions of people in the country illegally, and he said the Republican presidential nominee now holds a position largely identical to those offered by Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and the Senate’s Gang of Eight.
On Tuesday, Trump told the Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity that many people have approached him about softening his plan to create a national deportation force to expel everyone in the U.S. illegally.
“I’ve had very strong people come up to me, really great, great people come up to me. They’ve said, ‘Mr. Trump, I love you, but to take a person who’s been here for 15 or 20 years and throw them and the family out. It’s so tough, Mr. Trump.’ I have it all the time,” said Trump on “Hannity” Tuesday night.
He then explained why allowing those who followed the law since entering the country illegally would not amount to amnesty.
“They’ll pay back taxes. They have to pay taxes. There’s no amnesty as such. There’s no amnesty,” Trump said.
But Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian told WND and Radio America this is a stunning reversal for the candidate who won the GOP nomination based largely upon his commitment to secure the border and remove those living here illegally. He said this new Trump approach doesn’t seem to differ much at all from the 2013 Gang of Eight bill that passed the U.S. Senate but died in the House of Representatives.
“Not that much, honestly,” Krikorian said. “The Gang of Eight was obviously a lot more detailed with a lot more explicit, whereas Trump is talking off the top of his head. But really, he is now the unofficial ninth member of the Gang of Eight.
“You’ve got to wonder when Jeb (Bush) was watching this on TV, he probably spit out his drink and started yelling, ‘That’s my immigration plan!'”
He said Trump used the same verbal tactics that amnesty supporters also employ.
“He was using phrases like ‘it’s not really an amnesty’ or ‘it’s not an amnesty as such’ and ‘they’ll pay back taxes.’ Those are buzzwords of the pro-amnesty people. Every politician pushing an amnesty says it’s not really an amnesty,” he said.
Krikorian asserted that, just like 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney, Trump doesn’t speak the language of conservatives and really has no idea what they believe.
“The guy has been running on immigration for a year,” Krikorian said. “And he still doesn’t have the three bullet-point summary that you need to be able to articulate if you’re running for office on your signature issue. You need to know something about your signature issue. He doesn’t. Nothing.”
Krikorian believes it’s that disconnect with conservatives that led Trump to mistakenly conclude that the party base favored mass deportation through deportation squads. He said Trump may well have offered that idea out of genuine concern over America’s poor border security, but he was going to have to ease his position eventually,
“He was going to have to walk back his ridiculous comments about deporting all the illegals. There was no question. No immigration restrictionist has ever called for that,” Krikorian said. “That’s just something that was sort of a gut reaction of his. That was Archie Bunker yelling at the television.”
In the wake of Trump’s major policy shift, there is some speculation that internal polling convinced Trump to change course. Krikorian said if that’s the case, it should not be taken as a sign that American oppose blocking citizenship or legalization for those in the U.S. illegally.

“What the polling would likely show is that saying you’re going to deport all 12 million illegal aliens in two years with deportation squads, or whatever term he used, that doesn’t poll well,” Krikorian explained. ” You bet it doesn’t. That’s why no one in the restrictionist movement has ever suggested anything like that.”
But Krikorian said Trump walked it back in entirely the wrong way, by listening to his Latino advisers, who all backed the Gang of Eight and the immigration proposals of President George W. Bush.
“They’re all Bush people,” he said. “They were all for the amnesty in the Gang of Eight, and they were all for the earlier Bush amnesty. Presumably, with this meeting, people were saying, ‘Well Donald, it’s not really an amnesty if you don’t give them citizenship and make them pay back taxes.'”
“They made the same assumption that Republican and even Democratic politicians always make – that there’s only two options. Either deport them all with deportation squads or amnesty. It is not a binary choice,” he said.
Krikorian said the right way to back away from mass deportation was obvious. In fact, it’s been on Trump’s website for months. The strategy includes consistent enforcement of the law, monitoring businesses as they hire and keeping track of visa holders to reduce the number of people in the U.S. illegally.
“Then when you re-establish control, you can have a discussion about what we do about the people who are left here,” he explained.
While Krikorian slams Trump for flip-flopping on his signature issue, he is far more critical of Hillary Clinton. Krikorian said Clinton has the most radical immigration plan ever put forward by a major party nominee in the U.S., to the point of refusing to deport anyone here illegally unless they are convicted of a violent felony. She would also grant amnesty to all current illegal immigrants.
“That is radical,” he said. “Trump does look pretty good compared to that. My point is not that they’re the same or that Trump is worse. Hillary is unbelievably worse on immigration, to the level of irresponsibility and dereliction of duty.”
iCopyright Interactive Copyright Notice

SalMarDib Loc: Fly over country

Not a lot of personal thought in that cut and paste of yours. Still the last sentance is key, "Hillary is unbelievably worse on immigration, to the level of irresponsibility and dereliction of duty.” That alone speaks volumes.

waltmoreno

I don't disagree with the observation that Hillary is the worse of the 2 candidates. This thread is about Trump's position on immigration.
So when all the dust settles and Hillary is sworn in as POTUS, just remember that it's those idiots who blindly supported Trump in the primaries over many bona fide conservative candidates, who are to blame. If the shoe fits wear it.
Sure Trump won the primaries, but that's with 16 other conservatives candidates splitting the vote.
Everyone said then that he couldn't beat Hillary. And it seems to be bearing out. No matter what flip flopping he does.
And BTW, I live in California, so my vote won't even count. Hillary will win here by millions more votes than she needs for a majority.