Harry Reid…
…has words of praise for Trump.
Harry Reid has many reasons for being somewhat nice to Trump. Let’s see what they might be:
(a) Trump has praised him and given him money in the past.
(b) He might want Trump’s business some day in Nevada.
(c) He probably thinks Trump would be the easiest of the leading GOP opponents to beat.
(d) He believes Trump is also the most liberal of the leading GOP opponents, the one most likely to compromise or even sympathize with the Democrats on quite a few of their causes.
The only reason Carson is sticking it out through South Carolina is race. They have an almost 30% black population. Paradoxically, I don’t think this will help him in the least, but I think he’s staying in for the optics. If he can’t make any headway in this primary, I expect him to drop out.
He’s a smart, decent guy. I saw him give a commencement speech 10 years ago and was impressed. The ancient Egyptian pyramid debacle sunk him, along with the exaggerated West Point nonsense.
The current GOP house and Senate gave Obama everything he wanted in the Omnibus bill. Even if Trump sided with Reid on everything he Reid wanted, it would not change the status quo; the GOP are already doing it. Not that I expect Trump to do that. He wants to deport 11 million future Democrats.
PatD:
He wants to deport them and let all but the criminals them back in. Cruz wants to deport the criminals. That seems pretty much the same, only a lot less costly and a lot simpler. But Trump gets attention for saying it in a much more dramatic way.
And I missed where the entire House and Senate, and especially McConnell and Boehner and Ryan, had entered the presidential race. Actually, Trump’s opponent is Cruz, who would not be doing what those people did, and who fought them.
We know that Cruz has fought them. We know no such thing about Trump, who in fact praised Reid and Pelosi, and wanted George Bush impeached. No wonder Reid much prefers Trump to Cruz.
It is amazing to me how anyone could suspend belief long enough to actually think that Trump is a Conservative or even a Republican. Reid is a gangster and should be investigated for making millions of dollars while on a public salary.
I think it’s because he believes Trump cannot win the national election. Whether or not he’s right, we’ll see…
Larry Cozine, it amazes me too and hopefully there are millions of other like minded voters.
Parker,
We can only hope that is the case. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I am starting to believe Trump is a Clitonian Manchurian Candidate.
@neo-neocon:
Trump’s position is that they must come back legally and only the “good ones” can come back. It depends on the meaning of “good”. In his published position on immigration Trump writes:
How many illegals are going to be able to satisfy that requirement?
The GOP willingly and by huge majorities passed the omnibus bill. If a GOP president governed like Obama the House and Senate would still roll over and play dead.
The Senate has already passed the Gang of Eight bill. Suppose Speaker Ryan brings it up again and it goes to the White House. Could we trust President Rubio to veto it? Or President Cruz? Both have enormous super PACs financing their campaigns and GOP super PAC donors are notorious open border globalists.
Both Cruz and Rubio’s positions on immigration have evolved but it looks like they are responding to Trump. Neither have gone beyond Trump even though there are openings there. For example, they could support mandatory deportation, repayment of all welfare obtained illegally, and a mandatory ten year waiting period before being able to come back legally.
Cruz claims he led the fight against the Gang and Eight bill and won.
He spoke against it and campaigned and offered amendments, but it still passed in the Senate. The ONLY thing that stopped its passage in the house was the stunning win by David Brat over Eric Cantor. Brat had campaigned on immigration and his victory scared away all the votes Boehner had whipped into line.
Not surprisingly, the GOPe are working hard to unseat Brat.
PatD, I agree that there is some room to maneuver on the immigration issue for both Cruz and Rubio, but I would rather have someone who fought against the Gang of Eight Bill (Cruz) then someone who WAS the Gang of Eight Bill (Rubio). I like your thought process on the deportation, repayment and waiting period angles, but we have got to actually secure the border first and foremost. I have friends who are in law enforcement in the Texas border counties and they are basically in a war zone right now with absolutely no help from DC. That is the one and only thing Trump gets right in my opinion and taxing the money going back into Mexico may not be a bad option, even though as a conservative it makes my skin crawl to add anything to our tax code right now. None of this will get done without a forceful leader who actually, you know, leads. Cruz is my guy for that.
“(d)” goes to the argument for Trump’s electability, the notion that at each successive level he’ll manage to convince enough of whomever – however – to sell him enough rope to climb to the next level.
PatD:
Trump can write whatever he wants. He has changed his tune on this many times. And none of it bears much relation to the reality of what can be done—not to mention how much it will cost, and whether Congress will fund it.
Or will Trump fund it himself? Or get Mexico to fund the deportations?
Trump could say he will flap his wings and fly to the moon, but that doesn’t make it so. It doesn’t even mean he intends to try.
Oh, and you say that Cruz couldn’t magically stop the Gang of 8 bill all by himself? What a shock! He sure did a lot to try, and I’ve read several articles that say he was very instrumental in stopping it.
Reid may be a knave, but he’s no fool.
Praise be to Allah, Reid is retiring. I’d like to say that I wish I could send a fruit basket to whoever it was that beat him up. But that would be wrong. And I’m not going to say that.
PatD:
“The GOP willingly and by huge majorities passed the omnibus bill.”
That is a total misstatement of what happened.
The “huge majorities” were attributable to the near unanimous support of Democrats. In the Senate, about half the Republicans voted against it (Rubio didn’t bother to show up), and in the House only 79 Republicans, less than 1/3, voted for it.
Your anger should be aimed in the same direction as the conservative base’ has been for over a decade, at the damned RINOs. We knew all along who they were, and named them too. Most are long time incumbents who, because of gerrymandering, name recognition, and their ability to deliver pork to their districts gave them enormous advantages for re-election.
Haven’t you followed how the RNC has actively submarined conservative candidates and primary challengers for many election cycles? Conservatives couldn’t generate your anger in all these fights. Why? They were trying mightily to re-take the GOP from the inside and got no support from those now blindly following the guy with the the loudest flute.
Now you’re all willing to trash the ones you should have been backing all this time, like Cruz, flipping a coin for the future of the nation on whether you can trust a man with no history of being trustworthy at all.
Neo – yep on all counts.
PatD – the point about illegals is that they aren’t applying for admission. So changing the rules for application and making them stricter is unlikely to affect them.
Trump can write whatever he wants. He has changed his tune on this many times.
He has not changed his tune since his book came out in 2011. Do you mean older than that?
He has not changed his tune about trade. You can go back decades where he talks about the same stuff.
Once again, is the ‘rule’ that you must have the same identical positions for decades of your life before your ideas are taken seriously?
If people went back to my 20s, I wasn’t as conservative as I am now. Would that be held against me if I were to run for president?
FYI, both Rubio and Cruz don’t have decades of opinions to look over. Trump is a good 25 years older than them, so he is going to have more life experience and changing of ideas than they are. We are riding on 4 years of Congressional record for Rubio and about the same for Cruz.
Besides, it all matters, once again who you trust to be telling the truth.
Wondering also, what people think of Cruz practically speaking in tongues when he was in Iowa. That turns me off. Was that for show? Or is he really that oddball? Something to think about.
Reid might be speaking strictly for himself but is more likely sending a party message to Trump; that if he is elected, they will welcome ‘the opportunity’ to work with him. Which puts the onus on the GOP to ‘work with’ a President Trump too.
Power brokers always hedge their bets.
Oh and what about Cruz’s wife talking about her husband having ‘the face of Christ’? I’m Christian, but that was just off the wall bizarre.
K-E:
He changed his tune on deportations during this campaign. First it was just “deport them all.” Then it was an open door where they came back in.
He first states things in simple, very dramatic form, and then backtracks somewhat. So people who haven’t been following him or read his books hear the very extreme statement “deport them ALL!!!” and don’t pay attention to the backtracks. That way he covers all bases. For those who want a complete hardline position, they think that’s what Trump advocates. For those who don’t, they fasten on the softer position.
I would wager that most of his supporters don’t know his position on deportation is not necessarily what they think it is. Nor do most of them know whether it could be accomplished or not, or how.
@neo-neocon: Trump the politician has been absolutely steadfast on immigration. He has also explained the many ways he can get Mexico to effectively pay for the wall. From “Crippled America”:
I’ve already posted what he means by LEGALLY.
In the unlikely event that he becomes President, he will have won on two issues: illegal immigration and Muslim immigration. That would give him great clout with Congress, if there vote is even needed. Raising fees may simply be an administrative action, for example. There is already legislation to support building a wall. The executive branch simply refused to do it, although Yuma shows what can be done.
I will repeat it again. The ONLY thing that stopped the Gang of Eight bill passing the house was the defeat of Eric Cantor by David Brat.
K-E, Cruz does actually have a decade of opinion prior to this, both as the Attorney General of Texas and even back in his time at College. You read his writings and you see the same opinions now vis-é -vis the constitution then and now. As for the religious overtones, I agree a little off putting at times, but he has never been one to shove his religion down anyone’s throat. I don’t think he will start now, regardless of what Chris “tingle up my leg” Mathews says.
PatD:
No he has not been absolutely steadfast, and your saying it does not make it so.
I’ve written many posts on the subject, and you continue to ignore them.
And the subject matter here is not whether Mexico would pay for a wall (I don’t think it would, by the way, but that’s not what we’re talking about).
As you usually do when we talk about Trump, you ignore what I say and talk about strawmen. Let me be perfectly clear: I am talking about appropriations for deporting all the illegal immigrants in the US, and then figuring out and paying for how to vet them and let many of them back.
And we could have a war of articles, where I post a bunch that Cruz was instrumental in abandoning the Gang of 8 legislation (and in Rubio abandoning it, by the way).
Waste of time.
As I wrote earlier today, you are coming perilously close to troll territory. Same arguments over and over, repeatedly “misunderstanding” my posts or comments. Arguing with you has become a waste of time.
When someone like Diana West endorses Trump, I take a second look. When Harry Reid has something to say about anything, I ignore it. Leftist crooks are simply not Americans. In order to turn this country around, we need a leader who can unite us as Americans. Perhaps the uniting is required before the country is turned around. Policies come after the power is attained and with the way the conservative and patriotic American brand has been harmed by the left, it might require a few little white lies to get everyone on the same page.
There is little question that Trump is a leader. IMO, Cruz and everyone else is not. So no matter how much we like Cruz’s policies, he may have difficulties getting things done. Also, IMO, Trump is not a power-mad type like the totalitarians who have brought wreck and ruin on their forelorn countries but the left may try to make you so think.
Come to think of it, the first order of busines might be to destroy the left. You think Trump’s up to that task if he wants?
When I hear the Trump daughter extoll her father’s virtues I get the idea that this is an exceptional man.
Maybe Trump on top with Cruz as second fiddle.
Diana West is one very smart lady and also a great patriot.
JMHO.
Harry Reid is worried that Sheldon Adelson may die soon and there won’t be anybody around to, as my Bubbe would say, “shtupp him mit gelt,” that’s why he’s sucking up to Trump.
Speaking of my Bubbe, PatD, when my grandparents came to this country, they had to PROVE they were self-supporting or had a relative who would agree to be financially responsible for them.
MF, by what definition do you label Trump a leader? Being successful in business is not in and of itself a sign of leadership. I think Trump is an exceptional manager, but NOT A LEADER. As the old saying goes, a Manager puts a fire under his followers, a Leader puts a fire IN his followers. Trump fans the flames of his followers, but doesn’t lead. He has takes and issue, like immigration and latches on to an emotional wave and rides it, but never masters the wave, never directs it towards something better or enduring. His views on foreign policy are meant for to stir emotions not solve issues. Just because you built hotels in Dubai doesn’t mean you know how to conduct foreign policy. I am sorry, I have lived in that World a long time and his constant refrain that he knows more about foreign policy than anyone else in the field is so much BS that it makes me sick. He talks a good game, but that is all it is… a good game. No substance, no policy, no answers other than I am great and I will go great things. Sorry, thanks for playing, we have some nice parting gifts for you on your way out.
@neo-neocon: From day one of his campaign Trump has been consistent. I’ve watched most of his rallies, interviews and debates, and read his book and position papers.
“Build a wall. Put in a door in for legal entrants.
Deport them all. Let the good ones come back legally.”
That expressly excludes criminals and welfare cheats, which would be a large percentage of illegal immigrants. It is estimated that more than 60% of illegals receive welfare benefits.
Why would he be inconsistent? His poll numbers keep going up as he stays on message.
Of course, he may turn into a typical GOP politician the day he wins and ask Speaker Ryan to pass the Gang of Eight bill, but I doubt it. No open borders billionaire has given tens of millions to his super PAC.
PatD, and since when is our government so efficient that we could actually vet those good from bad? Didn’t we just have an “issue” in San Bernadino because we can’t vet people properly who are coming into the country?!
neo,
PatD doesn’t seem to realize that Trump’s constant blustering on TV is also being covered across the world. He would start off with more negatives than W, which would make it harder for foreign leaders to embrace his positions.
Also it’s not just that Trump has changed positions, it’s that his previous positions were obviously terrible, eg, his former praise of Hillary. As for Reid, like Trump, he likes to make money.
@neo-neocon: I read what you post. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
Larry Cozine:
A leader is someone I would follow because of his charisma. He exudes it. FWIW, there are few people who impress me this way. I am not a natural follower.
As for the rest of your comments, I do not disagree but re-read and understand my post. We are not going to beat the left playing by the rules. Attainment of power comes first. Only then can you start doing stuff. What does it matter what he knows about foreign policy? I have no doubt that you or I could do a good job based on our principals and getting experts to help. This is a great country because it has a great people. They just need to be set to go in the right direction unobstructed. That’s what a leader of a great people does.
PatD:
“No open borders billionaire has given tens of millions to his super PAC.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but are you referring to Robert Mercer’s donations to Cruz’ PAC?
I just did some research on Mercer, including the left wing Wilipedia. I couldn’t find anything that claims he’s pro-amnesty, in fact, I found a story about pro-amnesty supporters protesting him.
He also has a major investment in Breitbart.com, but I don’t seem to find anything showing him trying to keep that formerly conservative site, whose regular visitors picked Cruz by vast majorities until the infestation began last fall, from becoming a sewer of the the most obnoxious, dishonest and abusive supporters of Trump, who save their most vitriolic attacks for Cruz.
But once the Cult of Personality grabs a new addict, logic, reason and evidence are the first thing that must be jettisoned.
@Larry Corzine:
It is worse than not vetting properly. The DHS scrubbed its records of Muslims with possible terror ties.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/268282-dhs-ordered-me-to-scrub-records-of-muslims-with-terror
@geokstr:
Cruz, to his credit, which makes him my second choice voted against Omnibus. Rubio skipped the vote.
House Omnibus VOTE BREAKDOWN:
GOP: Yea-150 // Nay-95
DEM: Yea-166 // Nay-18
TOTAL: Yea-316 // Nay-113
House Omnibus VOTE BREAKDOWN:
GOP: Yea-150 // Nay-95
DEM: Yea-166 // Nay-18
TOTAL: Yea-316 // Nay-113
Senate Omnibus VOTE BREAKDOWN
GOP: Yea-27 // Nay-26
DEM: Yea-38 // Nay-7
TOTAL: Yea-65 // Nay-33
I’d call 150 to 95 a huge majority. The Senate was much closer on the GOP side and Rubio could have made it a draw.
MF, my worry is that Trump’s Ego will get in the way of him actually listening to and taking advice from those he hires for his foreign policy. He doesn’t strike me as the type of person to sublimate his needs for the greater good. As a country, we just don’t have the time for another miss on this. The last one is currently driving us over a cliff.
“No open borders billionaire has given tens of millions to his super PAC.”
And here I was under the impression that Trump was financing his own campaign and beholden to no one. Thanks for the correction.
PatD, you quote Trump as writing:
“If necessary we could pay for the wall through a tariff or cut foreign aid to Mexico or simply make it clear to the Mexican government that it is to the benefit of their very profitable – for them – relationship with the United States to pay for it.”
So Trump wants the US to get in a trade war with Mexico.
How is he going to do that? How will he get the Democrats in the Senate not to filibuster this tariff and get the Republicans in the Senate who passed the Gang of 8 bill to vote for it?
If he cannot get the Senate to pass the tariff will he implement it as an executive order as Obama would? Are you OK with that?
Larry Cozine:
Trump knows the hustle and he is good at it. In some environments it’s a requirement for success. Politics is one of them LOL, I mis-spent my youth in pool halls. I’m supposed to know.
You talk of Trump’s ego. I believe it’s an act, part of the hustle. How many times have I see a hustler take down the cash beause others were suckered into thinking he was just a braggart. I’m sure you’d love to see someone do that to the left.
What impresses me about Trump are his children and how they talk about him. They impress me greatly. Thse are not the offspring of a conniving huckster with an ego problem. The quality of the tree can be seen in its fruit.
Trump is an American with all the honor that title means and implies. Could a Trump arise anywhere else? I think not.
We, you and I, may not have time to see the country renewed but the greatest thing since sliced bread is America and its ideals. It is not going any where. 🙂
A view of Trump from a conservative free-market economist in Australia
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2016/02/13/you-go-to-war-with-the-army-you-have/
I can see just as easily as anyone else that he is not your standard issue highly polished product of the elite establishment in the US. He is crass and loud and bumptious and vulgar. All true, but he is also smart, and shrewd, and tuned in and hard edged. But most of all, the things he wants are the things I want, the most important ones being the preservation of the United States as the land of the free and the defender of our values. He also has the one element none of the others on the Republican side have, a fighting will that will not be pushed around by the media and the left.
And I am not even going to say something like he’s not perfect, because, for all I know, given the way things are and what now needs to be done, he may well be exactly what is needed. He may exactly suit the times we are in.
Neo,
Trump has not ‘changed’ his position on immigration. He said we would deport all illegals and then the ‘good ones’ can try to come back in through the legal immigration system. He has been consistent about this.
He has sound bites to get the big point across: deport all who came here illegally. Then he explains it in a slightly more detailed fashion: we will let the good ones back in.
I get what he means. Most regular folks do. Because he talks in plain language. I knew exactly what he meant when he talked about stopping muslims from coming in until we can figure out what’s going on. Those were pretty much the words he used. Regular old language that is easy to understand. No explanation necessary.
I think this is why he appeals to a broad spectrum. he doesn’t talk down to you, he doesn’t try to prove his intelligence. His life accomplishments prove he is intelligent. You can watch old interviews of him where he is kind, generous to people, encouraging.
I think many of us are tired of lawyer-speak and being told we are too stupid to understand finer policy points. I want someone who speaks in plain language and who gets things done without worrying about the press or what people think.
K-E:
I don’t think he used the phrase “through the legal immigration system,” which implies getting in line with everyone else. He also omitted the “letting back in” part at times, so that some of his followers are not aware of it. He said Romney ‘s policy was too mean. I wrote a post about his support of some kind of amnesty around the time of the Gang of 8 bill. And on and on and on…
Consistency? A rather odd type, I’d say.
@geokstr:
I was referring to Rubio specifically.
http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/10/31/marco-rubios-new-billionaire-backer-top-funder-open-borders/
Robert Mercer doesn’t seem to be an open borders advocate like Singer. He does seem to be a supporter of free trade and limited government because he supports the Club For Growth and The Heritage Foundation.
Consistency, we don’t need no stinking consistency. Consistency is for Yuge losers!
@Bob_CA:
Congress has done whatever Obama wanted even with both houses in GOP control. Congress has yielded far too much power to the executive branch, including the bureaucrats who write the rules and regulations. The EPA has run amok under Obama and Congress has barely whimpered. SCOTUS just reined the EPA in a bit.
The executive branch can do things like increase border fees without Congress being involved. Impounding remittance payments derived from illegal wages is a law enforcement issue and IRS issue. Law enforcement and the IRS already have the power to impound whatever they feel like. Those powers should be limited but congress won’t do anything.
As to getting Mexico to pay for it, well, there is a lot of leverage short of a trade-war. I suspect, and it is just a suspicion on my part, that what Trump is angling for is for the Wall to be built on the Mexican side of the Border. Why? Previous attempts to secure the border have been stymied by environmental impact statements and lawsuits. Building it on Mexican territory would avoid those road-blocks. Pure speculation on my part.
@Parker:
Cruz has his inconsistencies on illegal immigration.
http://news.yahoo.com/ted-cruzs-dishonesty-on-immigration-182057600.html
Trump, as neo-neocon points out, has been all over the map on illegal immigration during his business career. My position is that Trump has held a consistent position since he became a politician, and that is all that counts. Maybe he will revert and I’ll look stupid, in the event he actually wins. I’ve looked stupid before, when I confidently predicted Romney would win.
Whether or not Trump wins the GOP nomination, he has done a service by forcing the other candidates to toughen up their illegal immigration stances. I’d trust Cruz over Rubio on this issue, BTW.
Sequester. It was a Republican victory, many may have forgotten.
PatD:
My apologies on the GOP vote on the Omnibus bill. I must have looked at the wrong article or something.
PatD:
Trump has NOT had a consistent position on it since he became a politician. You seem unaware of his inconsistencies since he announced last summer, plus you seem unaware of the history of his political career. He ran for president (I’m doing this from memory because I’m on a cellphone right now and in a hurry) in 2000 and again in 2011-2012. In 2012 he made those statements about Romney, and in 2013 he made statements that seemed supportive of amnesty.
Did his “political career” stop every time he officially withdrew, and you give him a pass on everything in-between runs? Will the real Donald Trump please stand up? And why pay attention to what he said yesterday? Why not go all the way and say all that matters is what he said today?
@neo-neocon: I said Trump was all over the map on illegal immigration until he announced on this cycle. He was never serious before. In fact, I don’t even remember him running before. He was not on my radar in any way.
He’s been consistent ever since he announced in June last year, which is a long time in an election campaign. Will he stay consistent? I don’t know.
No regular politician has delivered strict border control, after promising to do so, for two generations. Eisenhower, Hoover and Truman actually deported illegals. It has been done and can be done if the political will is there.
Who knows if Trump can actually do it? I don’t. He’s not bought, which is a start. He’s campaigned on it pretty consistently, which is a good sign. But, as you point out, he has never held political office and may not know how to get it done. OTOH, he knows politicians; he’s paid his dues to most of them. Like I said, he’s a crap-shoot or a Hail Mary pass. But, at least he made it an issue that has woken people up.
I wish Romney could have been as effective but it wasn’t in him. Nice man, great business career, lousy politician. Trump is an obnoxious man, great businessman and, given his progress, an exceptional politician.
Gang of Eight and the Omnibus bill did it for me. The GOPe couldn’t give a tuppenny about its base. The base is responding and the GOP has met its destructor, an old celebrity with a ghastly comb-over, billions of dollars, a loud mouth, and an uncanny knack of attracting media coverage.
@geokstr:
You were right on the Senate vote. However, GOP politicians look to their conservative ratings. If a bill they actually support is going to pass, they can vote no and preserve their ratings. It’s called tactical voting.
PatD,
How are Trump’s proposals to get Mexico to pay for a wall and to raise import taxes on China any different from Obama’s red line in the sand? On the international stage when you talk big and don’t back it up, you are seen as a weak blusterer. You have to have your ducks in a row before you open your mouth.
Re Trump being inconsistent, here’s a nice example:
In a meeting with the NY Times editorial board in January, Trump said:
“I would tax China coming in – products coming in. I would do a tariff. And they do it to us. We have to be smart. I’m a free trader. I’m a free trader. And some of the people would say, ‘Oh, it’s terrible.’ I’m a free trader. I love free trade. But it’s got to be reasonably fair. I would do a tax, and the tax – let me tell you what the tax should be. The tax should be 45 percent.”
Then in the Republican debate on January 14, he denied he ever said that when asked about it by Neil Cavuto. Problem is the interview was recorded by the Times and proves he did say it.
@Expat:
Maybe some people overseas like what Trump is saying.
http://www.impulsetoday.com/trump-is-right-thousands-take-to-the-streets-in-anti-islam-protest-across-europe-and-australia/
Ann:
Actually, the bigger problem is that way too many of Trump’s supporters don’t care if he lies or contradicts himself.
PatD:
If the Gang of 8 and Omnibus “did it” for you, then don’t vote for Rubio. Vote for Cruz.
You write, “[Trump] was never serious before. In fact, I don’t even remember him running before. He was not on my radar in any way.”
Depends what you mean by “run.” He certainly flirted very seriously with it in 2000 and 2011-2012, but never tied the knot. See this, for example:
Trump gave interviews, talked about it very seriously and publicly, but in the end never made a formal declaration. Similarly in 2000. In 2012, he pulled out because this happened:
If his polls had remained high, I have little doubt he would have formally declared his candidacy.
So yes, he’s no political neophyte. He first started talking about running for the presidency in 1988.
You also write that “He’s been consistent ever since he announced in June last year, which is a long time in an election campaign.” For no other candidate would that be considered a “long time.” But in addition, he’s actually made some inconsistent statements during that time, although most were initially so vague and incomplete that they could hardly be called “statements.” For example, the fact that he was actually suggesting touchback deportation was a surprise, because his very earliest statements were just about deportation–he left out the “let back in” part.
In Trump’s kickoff speech I can’t find any mention of deportation at all. It doesn’t seem to have been important enough to him to mention. He mentions building a wall, and also rescinding Obama’s executive orders on immigration. His kickoff speech was long; it ran 51 minutes. He certainly had plenty of time to have talked about it.