Lion of the Blogosphere

Debate analysis


We’ve suspected for a while that Trump doesn’t really know what’s in his position papers on his website, and he outsources them to TrueCon types who ignore what he says in his campaign speeches. It has finally been proven today. The diatribe in his immigration plan against H-1B visas is apparently not something he’s actually going to do if he becomes president.

It seems to me that Trump’s actual beef with immigration is that our laws are being violated. Trump believes in law and order.

But today we see that Trump actually buys into the standard big-corporation lies on immigration.

* There aren’t enough qualified Americans
* We lose “talented” people if they graduate college and then aren’t allowed to stay here and work
* We need foreigners to do jobs Americans won’t do

When asked about his hotels’ use of H-2B visas, he could have said “I’m a businessman, I take advantage of the laws to make as much money as possible. But when I’m president, we are going to reform the H-2B program to create more jobs for Americans.” Instead, he just agrees with the standard corporate position that these are jobs Americans won’t do.

Trump has said all along that his wall is going to have a big beautiful door in the middle of it for people to come here legally. I now think that he means it, and that he has no interest in reducing the amount of legal immigration and may actually increase it.

Because I personally feel strongly about this, it’s hard for me to say if other people watching the debate have a lesser opinon of Trump because of this debate.


I think that Cruz had a very strong debate. He avoided trading stupid personal insults with Trump the way that Rubio did.

Cruz is definitely the strongest candidate on immigration. I think Cruz is the one who believes in the plan on Trump’s website (which we believe was written by someone from Senator Jeff Session’s office), and not Trump himself.

However, I would have a hard time supporting Cruz because he’s a crazy zealot on every TrueCon issue and everyone hates him. Abolish the IRS? Is that for real? He’s supposedly very smart and he want to Harvard Law School, but he obviously didn’t learn any tax law while he was there. Paying taxes with just a postcard is fine if your only income comes from W-2 employment, but the reality is that figuring out income for businesses and investments is extremely complicated and can’t be simplified away with a “flat tax.”

On the other hand, if Cruz somehow becomes president (and it could happen, Cruz could win the nomination after Trump loses in the first round of voting, and then Hillary could get in big trouble for her emails), he probably won’t be able to get Congress to do any of his crazy TrueCon stuff.


Rubio didn’t look very good to me tonight. He’s trading insults with Trump while Cruz is the guy talking policy and presenting himself as an alternative to Trump.

And then there’s the fact that we know that Rubio is just a puppet of his donors and handlers. He was all invested in the Gang of Eight bill to grant amnesty to illegal aliens, and now he pretends that’s not what he wanted to do.

Rubio just isn’t qualified to be president. Even if you approve of amnesty, he’s not qualified. If you want amnesty, then Kasich is a way better choice for president. If Rubio ever actually became the nominee, the Democrats would hammer him nonstop that he’s against abortions for women who were raped and got pregnant by their rapist.


I’m starting to fall for Kasich’s only-adult-in-the-room shtick.

Unfortunately, Kasich thinks that the adult thing to do is to grant amnesty to illegal aliens, which he previously promised to do within 100 days of taking office. That’s a huge deal killer for me.

I don’t understand why the GOPe, which I think agrees with amnesty, isn’t supporting him instead of Rubio.


He wasn’t physically at the debate, but he was there. He’d be a better candidate than Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich. And back in 2012, Ann Coulter supported him as the best candidate on immigration.

But Trump supporters will perceive him as stealing the nomination from Trump and he will lose their votes. I don’t think he’d be able to recover from that and be able to beat Hillary. (Although as discussed above and below, there are scenarios where Hillary become beatable by anyone.)


With Hillary as president, we’d get a continuation of Obama’s illegal executive orders to quasi-legalize illegal aliens by refusing to enforce the laws and actually grant them government benefits, while not doing anything to enforce the border. But at least Republicans in the House would refuse to vote for any amnesty bill that she proposes. They might, however, vote for an amnesty bill from Rubio or Kasich because they’re on the same team.

With Hillary as president, we’d also get a new liberal justice on the Supreme Court, and then the Supreme Court might find that illegal aliens have a constitutional right to stay here. Really, it could happen. Although slowly. They’d start by giving illegal aliens so many legal rights to fight deportation that it would be practically impossible to deport anyone. And then the Court would say that it’s unconstitutional not to give illegal aliens the “freedom” to work at a job. You get the idea.

It’s not a done deal that Hillary becomes president. She’s a very weak candidate. She’s a case of the party insiders selecting her, not the actual voters. And that email thing is hanging over her head which could kill her between now and November.

* * *

My favorite comment so far, written by “chairman”:

Cruz is a crazy libertarian ideologue. He wants money backed by gold. He’s spent too much time reading kooky libertarian (probably Austrian) nonsense. I’d rather vote for Hillary than such a type.

* * *

Frank Luntz’ focus group says Kasich won, and one woman says he was the “only adult in the room.” Maybe she was reading my blog???

* * *

Before I go to sleep, here’s the official Trump campaign response, denying what he said at the debate about work visas. I presume that, unlike his tweets, he didn’t write this response personally. Will Trump know what’s in it the next time he talks about the issue?

* * *

Commenters have corrected me. Cruz has a legislative record of being in favor of massive increases in legalized immigration. Trump is the best candidate on immigration, even though he doesn’t know what’s on his website.

Being against legal immigration isn’t part of the TrueCon gameplan, and TrueCons don’t have a strong unanimous viewpoint on amnesty. They are in favor of amnesty as long as it’s called by a better euphemism, just as they are in favor of adding complexity to the tax code as long as it’s called a “tax break.”

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 3, 2016 at 11:27 PM

Posted in Politics

111 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. You just realized that about Trump? In the CNBC they asked him about calling Rubio “Mark Zuckerberg’s Senator” and he had no idea what they were talking about.

    I don’t think that Trump is just mad that laws are being violated. Trump makes distinctions between the “best people” and the “worst people.” It seems central to his world view. I think that’s why he’s fine with high skill immigration, but is probably against low skill.

    Consider that something like 85% of immigration is family unification, which is why we get so many criminals and welfare bums.


    March 3, 2016 at 11:31 PM

    • Yeah, this isn’t the first time Trump acted in a debate that he didn’t know what his policy was on his website during a debate, and then backtracked on it back to his website policies post debate. I’m not happy about it, but considering where he went to get that policy (Sessions) and hires (former aide to Sessions) I still think he’s the safer bet regarding immigration than any of the other candidates.

      Mike Street Station

      March 4, 2016 at 6:02 AM

  2. how much do you guys actually think trump even understands about the issues at all? i feel like in a lot of ways his whole campaign was just launched on a whim “i want to be president!” then it just started rolling, he got into it too deep and it started getting out of hand. i dont think trump is an especially political person.

    james n.s.w

    March 3, 2016 at 11:35 PM

    • Trump is political, but he’s completely disinterested in even learning the not-very-complicated policy positions on his own website.

      • I think it’s important to preserve the meaning of “disinterested” as impartial, without personal interest, because it reflects a traditional moral principle in English speaking countries.

        Herb Dregs

        March 4, 2016 at 12:33 AM

      • Jeff Sessions would make a better President than any of them.

        Jay Fink

        March 4, 2016 at 12:43 AM

      • I agree strongly with Herb. It’s an ethical issue. Trump is uninterested in even learning…


        March 4, 2016 at 12:53 AM

      • What is he doing with his time? Is he still managing his real estate business? Is he just twittering all day?

        Lloyd Llewellyn

        March 4, 2016 at 8:21 AM

    • His incessant, almost tic-like use of certain stock phrases “they’re killing us on trade” etc has always struck me as signaling a deep, underlying nervousness. All politicians resort to stock phrases, of course, but Trump does it so constantly and pathologically, often in completely inappropriate contexts that leave him looking worse than he started, it’s hard not to agree with you, James.

      One thing it does show, however, is the importance of self-confidence and an alpha-type personality. On a substantial level, Trump doesn’t say anything more intelligent or bold than Ben Carson. But he says it with force, and that’s what draws people to him.


      March 4, 2016 at 12:45 AM

      • That’s an excellent observation, but I also think that his inability to speak in complete sentences shows he’s intellectually mediocre. I don’t want to get into another argument w/people here about Bush’s IQ, but I think we’ve got another Bush here – and look how that worked out. A more intelligent man would, well, be able to speak in more coherent sentences. I’m no Reagan idolator, but I was a Reagan watcher from way back. If you look at films of his responses to interviewers from his first failed campaign, I am struck by the force and intellectual clarity of his responses.

        And it is a personality issue as well. He should be nowhere near the Oval Office, and never will be. The PTB will *not* allow this guy to get the nomination, and for once, I agree with them.


        March 4, 2016 at 8:27 AM

    • This is the view of Yves Smith (Susan Baker) from Naked Capitalism and it makes a lot of sense to me, that the Trump campaign is a branding exercise that got way out of hand. As a New Yorker, I’ve been following Trump since the 1980s and he never struck anyone here as someone who would have serious and developed political opinions.

      Incidentally, I agree with the other commentators that if you think that both immigration is too high and that this issue is really important, Trump is pretty much your only option at this point.


      March 4, 2016 at 1:10 AM

      • Spot on. I assume Trump’s campaign was originally only going to last a month. The problem was that 1. Unlike in 2008 and 2012, no clear front runner was left over from the previous cycle. 2. It turned out that a quarter of the electorate was willing to vote for Any Candidate who was willing to campaign for an Immigration Moratorium. Adding that 25% to the 8% who backed Trump in 2012 meant that Trump was in the most dominant position (33%) from the beginning. 3. Lastly, the Corporate Progressives got Macy’s (etc) to cut ties with Trump. The damage that the Corporate Progressives did to Trump’s brand effectively burned his bridge: Trump was both angered, and unable to easily return his life to where it had been before the campaign happened. So, Trump likely realized that there was no opportunity cost downside to keeping the campaign going, and tons of upside if he could build upon his early tremendous popularity.

        Anonymous Bro

        March 4, 2016 at 8:04 AM

    • there are a lot of good points being put out here….but can we admit that trump has ZERO white race guilt? And that he has ZERO fear of the media and that we have NEVER had a candidate who will stand up to the media like he will? Those things alone makes him GOLD…


      March 4, 2016 at 4:21 AM

      • THAT is the real reason why people like Trump — he stood up to the PC mob. On immigration Trump is not the best bet because it’s hard to decipher what he would really do and his track record is very sketchy. The same for all of his new found conservationism. Trump has always been PC in the past so this latest round of being a SJW warrior is either calculated or something that he fell into by making a non-PC comment, became engulfed in a huge frenzy and then responded the only way he knows how, with no apologies.

        Take away the new modules of 2015 Trump and the only thing that’s left is protectionism and his obnoxious personality (or ultra-alpha to use the language of the keyboard-alpha dorks) . Trump has always sounded like Perot when he talks about trade because he thinks like a crony capitalist who wants to protect an uncompetative business and doesn’t give a shit if poor people have to pay twice as much for the crap they buy at Walmart.

        If you support Drumpf because you think he’s sincere about his immigration positions or think he’s at all conservative then you aren’t paying attention. He’s already given tons of hints about his true inclinations.

        On the other hand, if you’re a Ross Perot style protectionist who thinks that we can go back to a 1970’s utopia where millions of Americans get paid high wages doing tedious, monotonous, low value added factory work then Drumpf really is your man.



        March 4, 2016 at 9:26 AM

  3. I think that most Americans should support increased high skill immigration (read high IQ) and oppose low skill immigration.

    In any case, building the wall is a good next step because it at least gives us the capability to control the flow of immigration, if the political will to do so emerges in the future.


    March 3, 2016 at 11:36 PM

    • So you want a bunch of Asians to take us over? This country is ruined at this point. There is no going back.

      I saw a picture in a magazine from the 50’s of a little league baseball field in PA, with a bunch of white dads standing behind the center field fence watching their boys play. It was all white. That country is dead.


      March 3, 2016 at 11:47 PM

      • Bye, bye Miss American Pie. . .

        This country is too far gone and so is Europe. I fear we will go out with a whimper (Brazil-ification) or a tragedy (a violent and doomed Nazi movement). I’d bet on the former. Enjoy the decline.



        March 4, 2016 at 12:30 AM

    • How do I (an American) benefit from some chinese engineer coming to this country? I don’t. There is absolutely nothing good that he can do for this country that an unemployed American engineer can’t do. We have a huge surplus of highly-skilled people in this country.


      March 3, 2016 at 11:59 PM

      • Ummm..Chinese engineer is at work and not out joining the losers of BLM or own wall street movement or some other movement by losers. They go to work, raise families…u know those family values conservatives talk about.


        March 4, 2016 at 1:13 AM

      • You and your progeny will benefit from living in a nation with low crime, high average IQ, and relatively low welfare overhead.

        “There is absolutely nothing good that he can do for this country that an unemployed American engineer can’t do”

        I don’t agree with this. If abilities were distributed uniformly, and you wanted to hire the best people, you could only find ~5% in the US. Even if the US has way higher average talent, it’s unlikely that more than half will be from the US.

        Look at the research labs at places like Google/MSR and Facebook AI Research (FAIR). They have people from all of the countries in the world. If they only hired Americans then they would suck.


        March 4, 2016 at 2:29 AM

      • There are no unemployed engineers, at least not ones who went to a decent school and are willing to move to find a job. I’m a 40+ year old engineer with a mere Bachelor’s degree and I get phone calls or emails from headhunters every week or two.

        I’ve got no problem with high IQ, highly-skilled immigrants who come here, get a green card, and try to establish roots in our culture. That helps our country. It allows for more growth in high tech industries, which create jobs and tax revenue. Also, high IQ immigrants don’t commit crimes and they have smart little children who also contribute to the economy.

        I’m against temporary H1B visas except under extreme shortages. Temporary guest workers don’t lead to permanent new industries with permanent jobs. And the guest workers to send their income back to their homeland. I want that money to stay here.

        Great Again

        March 4, 2016 at 8:25 AM

      • “You and your progeny will benefit from living in a nation with low crime, high average IQ, and relatively low welfare overhead. ”

        You are crazy. You and your progeny will be living in Idiocracy, which is only kept afloat by a hostile power so they we can buy their crap.

        “Can the U.S. stave off the erosion of its longtime preeminence in science and engineering? For decades the nation’s stature in those disciplines has attracted many of the brightest and most talented students from around the world to America’s advanced degree programs. Citizens of other countries now receive more than half the Ph.D.s awarded by U.S. universities in engineering, computer science and physics, on top of earning one third of all college degrees in science and engineering. In certain subfields, the disparity is much higher: in electrical engineering, for example, foreign students received 65 percent of all doctoral diplomas in 2001.

        These figures should inspire alarm, not pride. The unpleasant truth is that the U.S. public education system simply does not produce enough high school graduates who are qualified for college work of any kind, let alone students with a vigorous appetite for math and the sciences. ”

        The Chinese & Indians who come here for our degrees in OUR universities have zero loyalty to American culture.

        Read the whole thing.


        March 4, 2016 at 9:35 AM

  4. Cruz would be fine. He is anti-immigration, has traditional values (which is a good thing if you don’t like feminism and the erosion of marriage), will be tougher on blacks than Trump will, and he said he is against tech visas. His policies seem fine. He won’t actually disband the IRS. I don’t think he would win the general, but I wouldn’t feel bad about supporting him if he were the candidate. Hillary is a weak candidate so it’s not impossible.

    I would be happy about a Trump win. He beat the lib ostracization machine, and that’s great. But there isn’t really anything wrong with Cruz except that the country shouldn’t have a Hispanic president.


    March 3, 2016 at 11:42 PM

    • Cruz is a crazy libertarian ideologue. He wants money backed by gold. He’s spent too much time reading kooky libertarian(probably austrian) nonsense. I’d rather vote for Hillary than such a type.


      March 3, 2016 at 11:53 PM

      • Yeah you should definitely vote for Hillary because of some trivial abstract objection to Cruz.


        March 4, 2016 at 12:17 AM

      • +1

        I increasingly loathe think tank conservatives and their ideological obsession with free markets. They go beyond simply pushing back on progressive intrusions into business; they cultivate an active hostility to even the most mundane things the government is responsible for providing. From the post office to the CDC to NASA to the Census Bureau.

        In my neck of the woods, government work is some of the last work someone who isn’t a high IQ careerist – i.e they want a well-rounded life the likes of which their parents had – can obtain and live decently.


        March 4, 2016 at 12:23 AM

      • Congrats on having a nice “neck of the woods,” but in mine the people with government jobs are blacks and Chinese on the lower levels, and female HR types on the rung above. The post office is doing badly not because of libertarians but because it is staffed by blacks and Chinese and because of email. Yes, we should fund NASA and the CDC well. Point me to Cruz saying he’ll cut their funding (beyond their no-doubt growing diversity programs) and I’ll be concerned.

        I see that “screw Cruz because libertarian” is your favorite post, Lion. Maybe you should slightly expand the range of things you care about and come to grips with the fact that the decay of the West is not solely the result of immigration. Regular guys are losing their role in the world, and it makes life miserable. We have no sense of purpose. The mission is gone. That’s because of feminist and homo warfare. Yet for your favorite poster, those issues pale in comparison to libertarian…think tank conservative.. Epithets and trivialities, when we are dealing with enemies who are taking us apart.


        March 4, 2016 at 1:39 AM

    • libertarianism is the political expression of aspergers syndrome.

      james n.s.w

      March 4, 2016 at 1:50 AM

      • “libertarianism is the political expression of aspergers syndrome.”

        Brilliant. 100% correct. Libertarians tend to have a high IQ coupled with a healthy dose of social retardation.

        Lewis Medlock

        March 4, 2016 at 12:04 PM

    • If through some miracle, Cruz came out of the convention as the nominee, I would be OK voting for him, but it would with the recognition that it’s a protest vote only since he doesn’t stand a chance against the Media/Democratic machine this fall. I think only Trump stands a chance to actually beat Hillary in a general election.

      Mike Street Station

      March 4, 2016 at 6:05 AM

    • Do not delude yourselves. Cruz was for immigration before he was against it.
      The Donald is right, without him immigration wouldn’t even be an issue in this race.
      No one but The Donald could have withstood the withering attacks from the Conservative Inc. media.
      Do you really think you can rely on Cruz to end the invasion?

      Here’s Cruz damned by his own words in 2013: (The good stuff starts at 1:20.)

      Ted Cruz would Double Immigration, add 500% worker Visas and legalize illegals.

      ” It’s going to be hard for the Republicans to field a presidential candidate as enthusiastic about the H-1B visa as U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

      Cruz, who announced his presidential bid this morning, once proposed an immediate increase in the base H-1B cap from 65,000 to 325,000. Cruz offered the H-1B increase as an amendment in 2013 to the Senate’s comprehensive immigration bill.

      Cruz’s amendment was defeated by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee, which approved an 180,000 H-1B cap increase in the comprehensive immigration bill. The House never acted on this legislation”

      “But speaking with Javier Palomarez, president of the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, on Wednesday afternoon, Cruz declared that “there is no stronger advocate for legal immigration in the U.S. Senate than himself,” The Weekly Standard reported…”

      “MSNBC reported last month that Cruz’s office had indicated that “he remains open to a path to legal status for undocumented workers, putting him at odds with conservatives who deride such a position as unacceptable ‘amnesty.’ “

      “Thursday, August 8, 2013
      Ted Cruz – The Controlled Opposition
      How Another Foreign National Plans to be President of the United States

      “Secondly, I believe we should expand legal immigration, reduce the barriers, reduce the waiting periods and I’ve introduced two amendments to significantly expand legal immigration, to double the caps on legal immigration from 675,000 to 1.3 million and to increase temporary high skilled workers by 500%.” – U. S. Senator Rafael Edwardo “Ted” Cruz.”

      Nedd Ludd

      March 4, 2016 at 8:30 AM

      • I would agree that Cruz is very suspect on immigration. He is a total free market ideologue so his core beliefs would tend toward open borders and lower wages. And if it wasn’t for Trump, immigration would not even be an issue in this campaign.

        Lewis Medlock

        March 4, 2016 at 12:10 PM

      • @Nedd Ludd So you’re a Rubio supporter? This is the same BS that Rubicito pushes using misunderstanding of how the Senate works to invert who was on which side. It’s a complete fraud. That video shows Cruz using parliamentary tactics to fight the Gang of Eight bill, offering a poison pill amendment to call the bluff of the Democrats and defeat the bill.

        Are you calling Jeff Sessions a liar when he says that Cruz was right there with him in fighting the bill? You can either trust Cruz and Session on who was on the right side or you can believe Rubio.

        Here’s an interview Cruz did with Limbaugh to explain exactly what the bill was and exactly what he and Sessions were doing to fight it.


        March 4, 2016 at 12:38 PM

      • Here’s a few more Cruz items for mvestal. Why is my post above BS?
        Except for the video these are quotes and not parliamentary maneuvers.
        Why make excuses for Cruz’s statements on immigration?

        On Immigration, Cruz Aims for Middle Ground

        “Asked about what to do with the people here illegally, however, he stressed that he had never tried to undo the goal of allowing them to stay.

        “The amendment that I introduced removed the path to citizenship, but it did not change the underlying work permit from the Gang of Eight,” he said during a recent visit to El Paso. Cruz also noted that he had not called for deportation or, as Mitt Romney famously advocated, self-deportation.”

        Yes, Unfortunately Ted Cruz Did Support Trans-Pacific Trade Deal (TPA) – With Video…
        TPP trade 2

        “Senator Ted Cruz voted for Cloture on TPA Fast track trade authority removing the hurdle and concern of further amendments and clearing the way for passage. Again, like “unanimous consent” cloture votes are not recorded roll call votes. Thereby Ted Cruz could obfuscate his support. He figured to hide, see how that works?

        However, Cruz advocacy could not be hidden entirely. On another bill HR 1314 Cruz voted against an amendment to the Trade Deal that would require congress to be consulted if China (or other nations) were to join after the fact:”

        Why did Ted Cruz give Obama executive action on Iran?l

        “Ted Cruz spoke powerfully, as have most of the GOP presidential candidates, as to the reasons why the Iran deal should never have been agreed to. He listed the reasons why it is so morally objectionable. He articulated the very essence of why the American people know beyond any doubt that it is the single biggest foreign policy mistake made in our lifetimes. He properly communicated why it will be seen historically as worse than Neville Chamberlain upon his return from Munich in 1938.

        So imagine most Americans’ surprise when they learn that Cruz actually voted to do the opposite of what every American wanted done with the deal: make it a treaty, enforceable under real congressional teeth. Americans did not want to let President Obama use his “pen and phone”-style executive order to wield foreign policy insanity.

        But that’s what the senator voted for in May of this year.

        I found it incredulous to even comprehend. I read the senator’s quote attempting to defend the action – but at the end of the day, the facts were: Senator Cruz voted in favor of giving President Obama the right to treat the “treaty” with Iran as nothing more than an executive order, rendering Congress completely useless in the process.”

        Nedd Ludd

        March 4, 2016 at 10:57 PM

  5. TRUMP only mentioned letting grads of elite colleges (HARVARD was mentioned) the opportunity to stay in the USA. That does NOT translate to allowing corporations to bring in h1bs from OTHER sources, such as overseas.

    Am I the only person here who actually WATCHED the debate?


    March 3, 2016 at 11:46 PM

    • Thank you Randy. I heard the same thing. Allowing smart, highly educated foreigners to stay here after completing college is a much different concept than temporarily importing a bunch of Indian slaves to do coding for 18 months and then leaving. I WANT more high IQ people to stay here, become citizens, become invested in the culture, and contribute to the economy. That’s what I heard Trump say he wants.

      I hope he clarifies in the post-debate spin room.

      Great Again

      March 3, 2016 at 11:51 PM

      • Huh? Trump quite explicitly defended the idea of importing temporary foreign “slaves” to work in his Florida club.


        March 4, 2016 at 12:47 AM

    • However there are a limited number of slots at universities such as Harvard, and if one is taken up by a Chinese Communist Party princeling that is one less available for someone who grew up in the US. Its very much a zero sum game.

      And its not easy at all for Americans to get accepted into prestigious universities in other countries.


      March 4, 2016 at 1:13 AM

      • @Ed,

        You seem to be the only person here outside of me who understands what the stakes are here. Allowing foreigners (mostly children of Chinese apparatchiks) to dominate our elite universities is cultural suicide. Most of the energy that powers Trump’s campaign is resentment of nuisances like Black Lives Matter and annoying but fixable things like illegals. If the country wanted to do something about Mexican/Central Am. illegal immigration, we could do it in no time flat. It’s an easy problem to solve and you really don’t need a wall. Full disclosure: that’s what attracted me to Trump in the first place.

        Dealing with a monstrous super power like China is another matter entirely. And the more I observed Trump, the more I see that he has zero capability to do this. They would eat him for lunch. They are not impressed with his alpha male boasting and swaggering. They are not Chateau Heartiste.


        March 4, 2016 at 9:04 AM

  6. I wonder if Trump is having a Perot moment here, where he realizes he could actually win and starts sabotaging himself. He was awful tonight. Not only hasn’t he studied his immigration plan, which makes a lot of sense, but he hasn’t studied any oppo research. The best he had on Rubio was his attendance record? Bring up the arrest with the gay porn guy, the foam parties, Corinthian Colleges, his rumored drug connections, etc.

    Dave Pinsen

    March 3, 2016 at 11:47 PM

    • That would take real work. Easier to make fun of him sweating a lot and having big ears.

    • Going after Rubio is simpler than that. He ran for Senate opposing amnesty, got into the Senate and immediately colluded with Chuck Schumer for amnesty, and then went on all sorts of conservative media and lied about his bill.

      How that hasn’t been brought up during a debate I don’t understand. That’s a lot simpler than talking about credit cards and foam parties.

      Mike Street Station

      March 4, 2016 at 6:09 AM

    • I don’t think Trump really wants to be president either.


      March 4, 2016 at 9:11 AM

  7. I don’t understand why the GOPe, which I think agrees with amnesty, isn’t supporting him instead of Rubio.

    Kasich would be a bit of a compromise with the base because Kasich is slightly better on amnesty than Rubio. The establishment doesn’t want to compromise at all and admit they were wrong about anything.

    Those morons are going to keep backing the mortally wounded Rubio until Trump wins a majority of delegates.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    March 3, 2016 at 11:51 PM

  8. Trump is a big-picture guy. He has a vision, then hires people to worry about the details. If he thought H1B’s would help America, he’d support them. If he thought H1B’s would hurt America, he’d be against them. We can only hope that when it comes down to making policy, he’s surrounded by people like Sessions, who can explain to him the stuff you’re posting here. I think if he knew the truth about how H1B visas are used, he would be against them, and only supports them in theory, because he imagines that it’s about the ‘best and brightest’ coming here and helping ‘make America great again’.


    March 3, 2016 at 11:52 PM

    • When he hired the foreigners at Mar-a-Lago for the season, I wonder if he hired white people for those jobs? Maybe he didn’t hire any locals because he didn’t want minorities servicing those guests.


      March 3, 2016 at 11:59 PM

  9. Trump’s been really damaged here. The Trump U scandal looks shady and his “well find out in 3 years” just a terrible response, assault weapon turnaround was comic, Afghanistan/Iraq/can’t tell the difference embarrassing, and the refusal to KO Rubio on amnesty when Megan Fox of all people had him on the ropes was shocking. “Everyone needs flexibility, I agree with his answer”…Were there explosives strapped to his house? Why did he do that?! Rubio was sweating and gulping there.

    The Snowden is a “spy” line was also very annoying to me personally. Snowden blew the whistle and the NSA who have continually lied about their activities harried him out of the country. Nobody wants to end up like Chelsea Manning.

    Lost a lot of passion for Trump here. Trump looked rattled and obnoxious with the Little Rubio thing again and again. He looked discombobulated.

    Kasich actually looked the best. But his 100 day amnesty plan is total disqualifier. Don’t care what the rest of his policies are. Kasich could propose almost anything and not change my mind.

    The Philosopher

    March 3, 2016 at 11:55 PM

    • This sums up my reaction pretty well, without even mentioning the H1B issue, which was also troubling to me. Not sure what I feel about Trump now.

      Kasich’s performance actually prompted me to check out his website, but couldn’t see he had a position on immigration at all. The 100 day thing, if true, explains that – he wouldn’t want to be highlighting the issue in this climate.

      Henry Miller

      March 4, 2016 at 12:08 AM

    • Kasich actually looked the best.

      I hate Kasich and agree. Still, his performance changes nothing because he has no realistic path to a majority of delegates.

      The only serious candidate who can stop Trump is Cruz whose right-move on immigration is about 6 months too late and whom the establishment hates more than Trump.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      March 4, 2016 at 12:28 AM

    • He repeated the “let’s not worry about this yet, we’ll find out in a few years” line. And I kept thinking, “like what, maybe…8 years?” We call that the “Obama Trajectory.”

      Socially Extinct

      March 4, 2016 at 2:01 AM

  10. It’s a disappointment. He was always simply the least bad option.

  11. He was receiving so much incoming, some of it subtle and under the radar, that perhaps on certain issues he resorted to tropes he remembered hearing from mainstream politicians. We need to seek clarification on whether this was a reversal of policy, because all I saw was a meandering stream of consciousness type mention.

    It’s undeniable that a lack of preparation for these debates is starting to become a liability. I believe he will do what he stated in his position papers. I don’t see him reneging. But he has been existing these last couple of weeks in a constant state of mental overload — the disavowal, and then confusion about Duke, etc. I will cut him some slack until he is given the chance to clarify if this is really a reversal.

    There is no excuse for not knowing your own positions, but Trump has already pitched himself as a person who plans to delegate a lot.

    E. Green

    March 4, 2016 at 12:07 AM

    • There is no excuse for not knowing your own positions, but Trump has already pitched himself as a person who plans to delegate a lot.

      Maybe he needs a week’s vacation? Remember he flip-flopped on the Obamacare mandate today when he released a standard conservative health care policy proposal, which he still probably hasn’t read.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      March 4, 2016 at 12:29 AM

  12. Cruz has a really weird, wooden way of speaking. Even more so than most politicians. Maybe it’s useful because large numbers of voters are so dumb or uninformed that they won’t catch your point unless you present it in a choppy, elementary school teacher type of speaking.

    But even though Trump’s non-sequitur stream-of-consciousness type of public speaking is also kind of odd, I prefer it a whole lot more than Cruz’s. It sounds much more natural.

    Trump’s temper is still rather troubling though I must say. But, I guess, in all democratic elections, pretty big flaws of all the candidates usually become apparent and you eventually just have to choose the least objectionable to you. So I’m sticking with Trump.


    March 4, 2016 at 12:12 AM

    • I assume Cruz’s speaking style is influenced by evangelical preachers that impressed him as a kid. The subset of the population that is used to the same style of preaching tend to find him winning. Everyone else thinks his style is weird (I figure there’s a substantial gray area of people who like other things about him but think his speaking style is weird).

      Greg Pandatshang

      March 4, 2016 at 11:38 AM

  13. drudge and time show trump winning big


    March 4, 2016 at 12:13 AM

  14. Let me add that I favor high skill immigration. But the fact that he can change his mind so casually on it makes me think he can do the same for anything, even low-skilled immigration and illegals.

    I like Cruz, but can’t stand the idea of him prosecuting Planned Parenthood, the only force for eugenics in society. So I’m stuck with Trump.


    March 4, 2016 at 12:15 AM

    • why do you favor high skilled immigration? It is even worse than low skilled immigration. We need less immigration, period.

      Otis the Sweaty

      March 4, 2016 at 12:59 AM

  15. Trump’s hard stance on immigration is why he’s at the top. For him to soften his stance is outrageous. A week ago, I was all in for Trump, now I’m warming to Cruz. Trump is losing debates and will be attacked hard over racism.


    March 4, 2016 at 12:21 AM

    • Trump doesn’t understand that he’s being supported in spite of what critics correctly point out as major flaws. It’s his firm stance on immigration policy that made him distinct from everybody else. What he said in the debate about H1Bs was the equivalent of puncturing your rubber life-raft with a knife when you’re in the middle of a shark-infested ocean.


      March 4, 2016 at 12:43 AM

  16. Good analysis. THIS time it is better than anything to be found from the lame punditsphere.

    This was the debate where the tag team finally made Trump look a fraud by selling anti-immigration people “their fantasy” and that he doesn’t really have any strong commitment to it or even a very deep understanding of it.

    The bit about the meeting with NYT editorial board and telling them he’s not really sincere about immigration is VERY damning. First, his excuse that the NYT wanted it off the records is incredibly phony.

    TANGENT: I just noticed that of the 16 Republican contests only 3 are closed, Republican only primaries: Iowa, Nevada, Oklahoma and Alaska. All the rest allow Democrats and Independents to vote for Republicans. So except for Nevada and Texas, Cruz has won every closed race and lost every open race. NOW, look at the 4 contests on Saturday. ALL FOUR OF THESE ARE CLOSED PRIMARIES.

    Back to the debate, I looked up Megyn Kelly’s reference to how Trump brags about how he sells people “their fantasies”:

    “I play to people’s fantasies,” he writes. “People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That’s why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular.”

    Also, this quote from the book shows that Trump is well aware for the fact that his brand appeals to proles. He basically admits that only rich proles would most to Trump Towers:

    “Trump Tower is a building the critics were skeptical about before it was built, but which the public obviously liked,” he writes. “I’m not talking about the sort of person who inherited money 175 years ago and lives on 84th Street and Park Avenue. I’m talking about the wealthy Italian with the beautiful wife and the red Ferrari. Those people — the audience I was after — came to Trump Tower in droves.”



    March 4, 2016 at 12:21 AM

    • Have you listened to his ‘supporters?’

      Even if you agree with the guy, you are hard-pressed, as an intelligentsia, to stand side by side with them.

      Socially Extinct

      March 4, 2016 at 2:05 AM

    • but a bunch of the upcoming primaries are semi-closed, which means INDEPENDENTS can vote GOP…and these days the largest group of voters ARE independents…trump can still win this…but he DOES need to come out STRONG against exploitative LEGAL immigration …and SOON


      March 4, 2016 at 4:12 AM

  17. Eh. I don’t know. Sounds like he was trying to triangulate. Let him get back to his rallies and re-focus, we’ll see how he handles things.

    His lack of clarity on H1B is almost ubiquitous. Almost no one outside of tech has any idea how it’s being used. Ignorance isn’t the same as bad faith though. (Charitable perspective.)

    As far as his employ of immigrants, he should have answered as Lion indicated.

    Also, he’s been hammered by the GOPe, the MSM, and everyone else the past few. He’s gonna get dinged.

    Still rooting.


    March 4, 2016 at 12:26 AM

    • But did he even write that, or was it written by the same people who wrote the position paper, that it seems like Trump never actually read?


      March 4, 2016 at 12:35 AM

      • If he believed it, he would have said it in the debate.


        March 4, 2016 at 1:02 AM

  18. Clarification just came out.

    E. Green

    March 4, 2016 at 12:28 AM

    • He realizes (or his handlers do) that this is probably the most serious error of his campaign, because it demoralizes the source of his strength. But even the clarification just invites attack:

      “Megyn Kelly asked about highly-skilled immigration. The H-1B program is neither high-skilled nor immigration: these are temporary foreign workers, imported from abroad, for the explicit purpose of substituting for American workers at lower pay. I remain totally committed to eliminating rampant, widespread H-1B abuse”

      Oh, so *temporary* cheap labor replacements are the problem that you’re going to fix. *Permanent* cheap labor replacements, though? That’s different. You won’t sell low-skilled Americans down the river, just the high-skilled ones.

      Someone was paid to write this thing? Or is Trump’s gaffe just that unsalvageable?


      March 4, 2016 at 1:00 AM

      • I literally cannot imagine Trump using a word as sophisticated as “neither” in a sentence.


        March 4, 2016 at 11:33 AM

  19. great to see 🙂 good going trump on realising your mistake and rectifying it.

    james n.s.w

    March 4, 2016 at 12:39 AM

  20. The clarification is nice. Trump is the anti-Immigration pro-American worker candidates and he needs to OWN IN.

    robert rhodes

    March 4, 2016 at 12:51 AM

  21. I used to think this whole idea that Trump was going to “moderate” as he transitioned into the general election candidate was just another media line but this debate gave a LOT of proof for the theory. On several occasions he actively and explicitly emphasized that he was a negotiator and a deal-maker who is not afraid of being flexible and compromising on ideas and policies. If I recall correctly, at one point he even said something about how the whole point of deal-making is coming in with a giant ask and then negotiating down from there.

    I wonder what all the white nationalist internet weirdos who draw fan art of Trump dressed as Hitler think about that…


    March 4, 2016 at 12:56 AM

  22. […] TRUMP POLICY: Lion of the Blogosphere comments on the latest Republican debate: […]

  23. Trump rested on his Super Tuesday laurels, and it has seriously backfired. It is obvious that he desperately needs handlers and people to actually PREPARE him for clashes like this, but that would require him to listen to them. He can’t just wing it every time. That’s what a bullshit artist does.

    He worked really hard to demonstrate that Mitt Romney is right, that Trump is just a confidence man and swindler. He substitutes “believe me,” and other pleading vagueries for actual explanation because, frankly, he doesn’t know very much of anything, he just wants you to think he does. His contradictions are so cartoonish that he seems to have multiple personality disorder.

    Just when he needed to double down on his message, his core issues, and finish off his competition, he became defensive, retreated, and ended up getting routed. The Trumpian id that has been on display for months abandoned him in his last-word answer to that final question of catagorical support for the eventual nominee. He SHOULD have said:

    “You’ve just heard two establishment war mongers and a greasy tent preacher tell you I’m unfit for the office of the presidency but hey, sure, they’ll support me in November anyway. That’s hypocrisy, that’s weakness. I don’t need to extend them some political, inauthentic support, because I’M going to win this thing running away. Join me in saying ‘screw you,’ to these flimsy and waffling career politicians that are standing in the way of making America great again.”

    One last thought– Hillary Clinton could’ve revealed the damn nuclear codes in her email and would still trounce Cruz in a landslide based solely on how detestable, unlikeable, and revolting he is.


    March 4, 2016 at 1:09 AM

    • “One last thought– Hillary Clinton could’ve revealed the damn nuclear codes in her email and would still trounce Cruz in a landslide based solely on how detestable, unlikeable, and revolting he is.”

      LOL, I said something like that here a few months ago, and someone said, “that’s why women should never have been allowed to vote.”

      A lot of people on the alt-right have mental/emotional issues.

      Cruz is quite simply unelectable. He’s not even worth discussing. So is Rubio. So is Trump. This country’s debt is $19 trillion. It’s trade deficit is a nightmare. We have no border.

      All high IQ Americans should be thinking of the following options: hard landing or soft?


      March 4, 2016 at 9:19 AM

      • “A lot of people on the alt-right have mental/emotional issues.”


        “Cruz is quite simply unelectable. He’s not even worth discussing. So is Rubio. So is Trump. This country’s debt is $19 trillion. It’s trade deficit is a nightmare. We have no border.

        All high IQ Americans should be thinking of the following options: hard landing or soft?”

        I think Trump may be electable. That’s not certain, but if he is, he is the soft landing.

        Hillary and her successors are the hard landing.

        Mike Street Station

        March 4, 2016 at 1:31 PM

      • Re hard landing or soft, I think it depends more on factors outside the US, esp. w/China. Our political class ranges from treasonous to inept, but I think they are capable of a soft landing. “Events dear boy, events.”


        March 4, 2016 at 4:14 PM

  24. “We have a huge surplus of highly-skilled people in this country”

    Umm, not necessarily if you go by Michigan as a typical example. There is currently a shortage of some 130,000 skilled workers in Michigan alone.

    “Trump actually buys into the standard big-corporation lies on immigration..(that) There aren’t enough qualified Americans”

    Umm, it would seem that there AREN’T in fact, enough qualified Americans – at least in Michigan.


    March 4, 2016 at 1:20 AM

    • What kind of skilled workers? Be more specific.

      The vast majority of jobs don’t require a college degree. Most college degrees are padded heavily with “enriching” fluff that fill out 4 years because the Higher Ed Industrial complex wants things that way, and because US industry is run by cheapo bastards who don’t believe in training workers. (They train workers in Germany, or used to.). We could institute an apprenticeship program for bright HS grads and fill those vacancies with Americans if we wanted to, and don’t say we don’t have enough Americans do to this, because we do.


      March 4, 2016 at 9:23 AM

      • Exactly, college for most people is a waste. Even people getting degrees in such things as accounting spend too much time on school. They could easily cut it in half.

        Business has totally externalized costs onto to society in the training of workers which is a huge waste of societies resources. There is so much money wasted on college it is ridiculous and totally inefficient.


        March 4, 2016 at 8:57 PM

      • “Business has totally externalized costs onto to society in the training of workers which is a huge waste of societies resources.”

        Right. Because American businesses think of themselves only, and not AMERICAN businesses. They are all now part of the globalist agenda, heavily invested in China, Mexico, etc. Always been. American business, unlike Germany and Japan, never think of themselves as nation-builders first. They have always externalized costs. They are the heart of the treason lobby.


        March 5, 2016 at 12:34 PM

  25. Personally, I don’t think Trump really cares about any issue, other than his gaining power and money, and his country not being suckered around.

    In the notorious CNBC debate, Trump said that he liked Zuckerberg and was fine with H1-B visas. Once his supporters panicked about that, he retracted what he said in the debate and reissued support for his policy on his website. This might be a deja vu scenario, where he will retreat from what he said in the debate to match his supporters’ expectations, but it’s alarming that he doesn’t know the policies advanced on his website.

    Similarly, Trump supported accepting Syrian refugees before backtracking. Trump doesn’t have much of a brain when it comes to policy, but he does have a good gut sense of what is making him popular, and he knows how to backtrack once be strays from what he has previously advanced.

    Trump is a narcissist and narcissists tend to have very selective memories. So he can go from saying Romney shouldn’t have been so hard about illegal immigration, to changing his mind once he read Ann Coulter’s book, to being surprised by how much support he got once he started espousing positions he found in her book, to calling for H1-B visas and accepting Syrian refugees, to retreating back to his anti-immigration stance. Unlike most people, I don’t think he’s deliberately lying, he just thinks he’s always right so he couldn’t have been wrong in the past.


    March 4, 2016 at 1:27 AM

    • I saw Cruz being interviewed by O’Reilly immediately following the debate. He was asked if Cruz though Trump was “dishonest” and Cruz replied, after a pause, that he thought it was more complicated than that, and that Trump simply had no problem holding two completely contrary opinions in his mind at the same time and believing everything that comes out of his own mouth the moment it does.

      It struck me as very insightful.


      March 4, 2016 at 11:39 AM

  26. This is why I never supported Trump from the start. He is a salesman. He is selling himself as a true conservative just like he sold his overpriced condos. What he really is, is just a way for conservatives to feel good about themselves because he is willing to hit back at the mainstream media. No one is paying attention to actual policy which is why Cruz will lose.

    Typical of most Americans, the are going with what makes them feel good instead of what is better for them.

    Trump, if he wins, will walk back on every conservative stance he took in the name of negotiating for the good of the country and will nominate liberal justices.

    Now I’m for Cruz which I never would have thought possible.


    March 4, 2016 at 1:33 AM

  27. “…government work is some of the last work someone who isn’t a high IQ careerist – i.e they want a well-rounded life the likes of which their parents had – can obtain and live decently.”

    You do realize that “government work” is the last work where you can get better pay, benefits and pension than in the private sector, AND have security of tenure whether or not you have a clue or give a dam about your job?

    Not that there aren’t some very talented and hard-working people in the public service of course. Just not very many. And not nearly enough, since government jobs are often doled out the same way they are in every other corrupt country, with merit or ability very low on the list of job requirements.

    Too many drawing champagne wages when all they really deserve is minimum wage, if that.


    March 4, 2016 at 1:35 AM

  28. I’m skeptical Trump is as religious, pro-life, etc as he claims. Politicians frequently tell people what they want to hear on social issues because voters want to vote for someone who shares their social values. Since most politicians have no intention of actually doing anything on social issues they’re pretty much irrelevant.

    He’s waffled a little on other things but immigration and trade are different. He’s been a very vocal and consistent critic of those for nearly 20 years. Considering he’s made those the basis of his campaign and has every immigration hawk backing him and is hated by every immigration/amnesty proponent, I have to think he’s the real deal. Either that or he’s pulled the biggest con job in political history.


    March 4, 2016 at 1:54 AM

  29. Heh, seems to be a lot of democrats in the comment section tonight. Lion, your audience is growing!


    March 4, 2016 at 2:25 AM

  30. Rubio debating Hillary will look like Rubio debating his mom.


    March 4, 2016 at 3:27 AM

  31. look, do we really think any other presidential candidate will do any BETTER on work visas? MAYBE sanders…but sanders aint getting there….cruz? rubio? clinton? Don’t make me laugh….tell you what IS TRUE– TRUMP does NOT like political correctness, and Trump is NOT ashamed of being white…and he does not like the media’s reign of political correctness…are we going to find someone else that even comes close on these areas? NO….


    March 4, 2016 at 4:09 AM

  32. Trump’s shtick is getting old. After Super Tuesday he needed to drill down into the issues and act more presidential. He didn’t do it…and he won’t because I don’t think he can help himself. How many times can we hear these catch phrases about “not winning anymore”? The guy is remarkably short on substance and he’s starting to lose me.


    March 4, 2016 at 6:43 AM

  33. Personnel is policy, and Trump has surrounded himself with Sessions’ people.

    See how quickly he came out with this adjusted policy statement.

    Point being, the people who he’d actually have drafting these policies are the immigration people he has. Conversely, the GOPe people know all the lines to use on the base while being surrounded by the opposite kinds of people.


    March 4, 2016 at 7:29 AM

    • But if we go by his website positions than he has terrible health care and tax policies and doesn’t go anywhere near far enough on trade (he never mentions raising tariffs). Also if he contradicts what he says at the debates and in speeches than he opens himself up to charges of being a hypocrite flip flopper.

      Lloyd Llewellyn

      March 4, 2016 at 8:17 AM

  34. “Cruz is definitely the strongest candidate on immigration. I think Cruz is the one who believes in the plan on Trump’s website..” I think a little caution about Cruz is in order here. Less than 2 years ago he was advocating raising the H1-B visa limit by FIVE times. See the following link, and especialy watch the embedded video, where he actually criticizes the “Gang of Eight” bill for not going far enough in the H1-B area:


    March 4, 2016 at 8:50 AM

    • I’ve been saying that on various forums for several weeks. Cruz does NOT oppose amnesty. He’s just chosen to define amnesty in a ~creative~ way. Cruz thinks giving illegals legal status and work permits isn’t technically amnesty because it’s not citizenship. But we all know the Democrats would immediately start pushing for it… and they’d get it, too. As far as I’m concerned this disqualifies Cruz.

      Also, I ran across this little gem of a video recently. If Rubio will have a problem in the general because he opposes abortion for rape, then Cruz will get slaughtered. I’m certainly no fan of fudpuckery. But I think this is ridiculous and NOT what we want blaring in political ads during the general.


      March 4, 2016 at 10:30 AM

      • Yeah, Cruz is unelectable. Full stop.

        Andrew E.

        March 4, 2016 at 10:42 AM

    • Another troubling issue for me in relation to Cruz is E-Verify. While he does state that “Companies that refuse to use E-Verify will be barred from receiving federal contracts”, note that this does not say that companies that use but violate the results of E-Verify will be barred from receiving federal contracts. These details matter and are, in my view, not unintentional. Also, he doesn’t require E-Verify for non-Federal contractor businesses, saying only that we should “Make E-Verify effortless for the private sector: Determine ways to expand E-Verify without burdening employers.”

      Read it for yourself:


      March 4, 2016 at 11:04 AM

  35. At the end of the day we just have to see Trump as a vehicle to get Jeff Sessions into a position of power.

    Haven Monahan

    March 4, 2016 at 9:17 AM

  36. But it is TRUE that there aren’t enough qualified Americans. Look at the graduate department of any university for math/physics/engineering most of the PhD candidates are foreign.

    And “good” immigrants do create jobs.

    See the founder of companies like nvidia, yahoo, Wang laboratories etc…

    IBM’S biggest inventor has 474 patents!!

    Donald trump is not a white supremacist!

    He is a common sense candidate, in fact if you look up the statistics most patents do not come from native born citizens!

    Lion do you seriously support shipping Ravi arimelli back to India because he came in on h1b ?


    March 4, 2016 at 1:54 PM

    • I assume his real job is just to fill out patent applications. I am sure there’s an American citizen who can do that.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 4, 2016 at 2:48 PM

      • Its against the law to be credited as a inventor if you didn’t actually invent it.

        If a patent is found to be fraudulent the entire patent can be invalidated And fined

        Filing a patent also requires a lot of time and money

        Keep in mind that the inventor of a patent is not the OWNER of a patent.

        It is also extremely easy to prove who invented what, for instance you could email the blueprints for a invention to yourself to prove that someone stole your invention.

        So would you answer on why you would deport this wealth and job Creator simply because he was born in another country?

        This is exactly what trump wants to encourage guys like Ravi to stay in the us!

        There are very strict rules which must be followed when deciding inventorship on a patent. In fact, getting inventorship wrong and purposely misleading the patent office may result in the invalidation of your entire patent and other penalties.


        March 4, 2016 at 3:12 PM

      • “Its against the law to be credited as a inventor if you didn’t actually invent it. If a patent is found to be fraudulent the entire patent can be invalidated. And fined. Filing a patent also requires a lot of time and money In fact, getting inventorship wrong and purposely misleading the patent office may result in the invalidation of your entire patent and other penalties”

        If you believe that, that’s hilarious.

        The patent office spends less than twenty hours per patent application considering documents with about 50 pages each that have to be reviewed and searched. That includes administrative time overhead of several hours. Most patents granted have essentially no review.

        There is a post grant review process that is used on patents usually when they’re used to sue someone. The lawsuit victim has to do the actual search and pay for a longer term review by that patent office. About 99% of the fees and lawyers are paid in this stage. The vast majority of patents tested by a full review are found invalid.

        Lots of patents have the wrong inventors listed and that is not one of the causes you can invalidate a patent for anymore.

        The whole patent industry is now mostly a frivolous lawsuit scam. The actual invention oriented part of the patent industry is now a minority of patents and patent cases. The Supreme Court has been taking unprecedented numbers of patent cases to try to clean things up and the number of applications is now finally falling slowly. Even Congress managed to get off its butt and reform things a tiny bit in 2011.


        March 4, 2016 at 6:01 PM

      • Occams razor

        What is more likely?

        Ravi arimelli is a genius along with his brother babe arimelli (second most patents at IBM)


        Massive conspiracy to take 2 3rd world nobodies give them 7 or 8 figure salaries and construct a massive lie that they are genius inventors by bribing 2000+ Co inventors, numerous employees, creating and giving him IBM inventor of the year award numerous times.

        Keep in mind that while the patent office does Jack shit, a lot of highly payed IBM manpower is used to create these 50 page patents, and a rival company could indeed invalidate a patent based on lying about the inventor if they decide to challenge.

        Keep in mind that these big tech companies have deep wallets and the Samsung vs apple fight has billions on the line.

        So which is more likely?

        Ravi is a genius?

        Or Ravi is a fraud created by a mass conspiracy for unknown motives and no leaks for 20+ years

        Or does this go against your belief that only white people can invent? Thus Ravi had white ancestry.


        March 4, 2016 at 6:49 PM

      • He’s just a cubicle worker who got promoted to “Chief Architect.” Someone has to get promoted, and if everyone in the department is from India, it’s likely that an Indian fellow is going to get promoted. He’s not a genius inventor, he’s a guy working for a corporation who has a bunch of lower level guys doing the real work, and IBM has a SYSTEM for filing as many patents possible, and the boss gets to have his name put on the patent.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 4, 2016 at 7:11 PM

      • >He’s just a cubicle worker who got promoted to “Chief Architect.” Someone has to get promoted, and if everyone in the department is from India, it’s likely that an Indian fellow is going to get promoted. He’s not a genius inventor, he’s a guy working for a corporation who has a bunch of lower level guys doing the real work, and IBM has a SYSTEM for filing as many patents possible, and the boss gets to have his name put on the patent.

        There is also a lot of importance of being the primary inventor in fact co inventors are listed in order of importance, and Ravi is listed as the primary inventor for many of his patents or

        What would be the motive for randomly adding a guy for no reason?

        The patent law is extremely clear about who gets listed, and what order they are listed, doing any of this wrong will automatically cause you to lose the patent

        especially when they do have cases where companies lost patents due to falsely listing a coinventor.

        If there wasn’t a MASS CONSPIRACY, why has nobody ratted out the boss for stealing ideas? for decades?

        Why would the CEO’s allow this Fraud (Ravi is allegedly one of the highest paid employees at IBM) when they could risk losing their million dollar salaries if a employee rats out Ravi, they could end up losing all of his “patents” due to fraud


        March 4, 2016 at 10:17 PM

  37. I don’t really understand the logic. Trump has said a million different things on immigration, many of them contradictory, impossible, or confusing. It is deeply unclear what he will actually do in office.

    Rubio and Cruz have also said a variety of things on immigration in the past. One can easily argue their positions are just as ambiguous and fluid as Trump’s.

    All this suggests to me is that anyone voting on the basis of “who has the best immigration plan” is probably in some serious denial. No one is entirely trustworthy on the issue. At some point you just have to do the impossible, and make a judgement about which lying politician is most likely to fulfill his promises.

    I don’t understand why so many people here think the OBVIOUS answer to that question is “Trump.”


    March 4, 2016 at 7:10 PM

    • “No one is entirely trustworthy on the issue.”

      Sen. Jeff Sessions is the most trustworthy elected official on immigration and he has endorsed Trump. Trump is a bundle of contradictions on the issue, but he is still far and away the best hope to get something done.

      Lewis Medlock

      March 5, 2016 at 11:27 AM

  38. IBM is a dying company.


    March 4, 2016 at 7:17 PM

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: