Behas baatchit ya faisla..... - Page 3

Tough guy in Arizona, meek in Mexico: Trump's latest reversal

Donald Trump went on his first non-golfing foreign travel of the 2016 election and returned a changed man. Gone was the candidate who talked about all those good-hearted illegal immigrants who have lived honestly in the US for decades. Gone was all the talk of them paying back taxes to get legal status. Gone was the kinder, gentler Trump.
Instead, the
Republican nominee delivered an immigration speech on Wednesday night with all the sweetness of the Sex Pistols, the brevity of Fidel Castro and the brains of Archie Bunker .
This was, in the nominee's words, "a detailed policy address" on immigration. Not to be confused with his declarations on the subject in a billion primary debates, TV interviews and midnight tweets.
So in place of "a deportation force" to forcibly remove 11 million undocumented immigrants, Trump described a "deportation task force" to merely eject 2 million "criminal aliens".
This feat will take place with remarkable speed on his inauguration day next January. "We will begin moving them out as soon as I take office," he explained, speaking from a teleprompter. "Day one. My first hour in office. Those people are gone ... The crime will stop. They will be gone. It will be over."
You may scoff at such promises, but this was no hyperbolic overstatement for the sake of a few votes. Trump assured us this speech would be different. "Today, on a very complicated and difficult subject, you will get the truth," he said.
Now unlike lots of other policy stuff - such as whether Russia has invaded Ukraine or whether you can really win a trade war with China - it's fair to say that Trump knows a thing or two about immigration.
His first wife was born in the Czech Republic, and his second wife was born in Slovenia. His own family (original name: Drumpf) came from Germany, settling in the US a little more than a decade before the first world war.
And yet, Candidate Trump proposed what he called "ideological certification" of immigrants to check their real intent. That was the only way to weed out criminals and terrorists, who somehow blended into one giant alien blob in his combed-over cranium.
Trump painted a portrait of a nation overrun by hordes of unassimilated aliens stampeding across the southern border, determined to butcher innocent Americans.
Never mind that most undocumented immigrants enter the country by plane and overstay their visas. Never mind that Barack Obama has deported more people than any other president, and more than every president in the 20th century combined.
The US government apparently knows about all these criminal aliens, often detains them, but just keeps on releasing them back into society to wreak havoc. "We're like the big bully that keeps getting beat up," Trump lamented. "Didya ever see that? The big bully that keeps getting beat up."
No, we've never seen that - except in one presidential candidate's recent trip to Mexico .
Trump thinks of himself as a tough negotiator who knows the art of the deal. So when he travels to Mexico to confront the leader of a country that he thinks is ripping us off with bad trade deals, and sending its bad guys over the nonexistent border, we know exactly what to expect.
A polite and friendly conversation that doesn't discuss his plan to force the Mexicans to pay for the wall he wants to build.
This is clearly a cunning negotiation tactic. He has already confused the Mexican president, Enrique Pea Nieto, who told the world that Mexico would not pay for the Great Wall of Trump. "I made it clear that Mexico will not pay for the wall," the president said bluntly.
Trump himself had a different take. "We did discuss the wall," he said. "We didn't discuss payment of the wall. That will be for a later date. This was a very preliminary meeting. I think it was an excellent meeting."
Other people hear "no" and think it means "no". Other people negotiate by trying to move the other side closer to their own price. Other people speak up in a discussion.
Not Trump. He negotiates by saying the discussion never happened. That's what "very preliminary" means. An "excellent meeting" is one where you lull the opposition into a false sense of victory.
"Today was the first part of the discussion, and a relationship-builder between Mr Trump and President Pea Nieto," said Jason Miller, a senior communications advisor to the nominee. "It was not a negotiation, and that would have been inappropriate."
More appropriate was what came out of Trump's mouth when he returned to the land of the free. "We will build a great wall along the southern border," Trump told his cheering supporters in Phoenix, Arizona. At this point, he walked across the stage and applauded himself.
"And Mexico will pay for the wall. 100%. They don't know it yet, but they're going to pay for it."
No, they clearly don't know it. But there were some clues left by some Trump staffers. As the candidate finished his speech, the loudspeakers played one track from his carefully curated campaign playlist. The classic Rolling Stones number: You Can't Always Get What You Want.

Donald Trump ahead of Hillary Clinton in latest opinion polls

Donald Trump has established a slight lead over Hillary Clinton in the US presidential election race, according to new opinion polls.
The Republican candidate had been lagging behind, but may have crept ahead of the Democratic nominee in the last week, the surveys suggested .
However, forecasters say Mr Trump's lead was still within the polls' error margins and experts emphasised it was too soon to call the election outcome.

Survey data released by American polling company Rasmussen Reports showed the lead Ms Clinton had enjoyed for most of the contest had disappeared, and put her behind Mr Trump for the first time since mid-July.
The latest weekly White House Watch report by the group, which targets likely voters by telephone and online survey, showed Mr Trump to have the support of 40 per cent of the US electorate, versus 39 per cent who said they supported Ms Clinton. The results are very different to the previous week's report, which put Ms Clinton at 42% and Mr Trump at 38%.
On Friday, Reuters reported the Republican candidate had pulled into a tie with his Democratic rival, based on their latest national tracking poll, produced in collaboration with Ipsos.
10 of the scariest things Donald Trump has ever said
The poll showed the same results as the Rasmussen Reports data for the week beginning 26 August.
The news agency reported that Mr Trump has erased a substantial deficit and consolidated support among his party's likely voters in recent weeks.
Mr Trump's support among Republican voters increased six percentage points in the past fortnight, Reuters/Ipsos found, to about 78 per cent.
Meanwhile Ms Clinton has faced renewed criticism over her handling of classified information while serving as US secretary of state, and her family's charitable foundation has come under intense scrutiny over donations it accepted.
Polling aggregators, which calculate averages of major polls, have shown that Ms Clinton's lead has been shrinking for the past few weeks. But in contradiction to the two new surveys, those averages still put her ahead of Mr Trump by between three and six percentage points.
Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said he remained convinced Ms Clinton was ahead.
"There has been a closing that's completely natural," Mr Sabato said.
US election: Trump in Detroit to woo black voters
"Every four years, you have two national party conventions that produce a bounce of varying sizes. Clinton got a substantial bounce this year that lasted for a full month. It's usually gone around Labor Day, and by then we'll be where we should be, which is right around four to five points [lead for Ms Clinton]"
Mr Trump has performed better this year in online or automated polls than in ones conducted by people.
Commentators say this could be because of 'shy' Trump voters who are ashamed to say they support the controversial candidate, but will turn out to vote for him on the day.
"We think there's a big hidden Trump vote in this country," campaign manager Kellyanne Conway told NBC last week.

NEW DELHI: Even as India considers military options to deal with cross-border terror after Sunday's Uri attack , a comment from Pakistan today - especially its timing - should give pause to anyone in New Delhi considering ill-thought-out plans of retaliation.

" Pakistan's nuclear program cannot be restricted," said Pakistan's permanent representative to the UN, Maleeha Lodhi, today in a New York press conference, Pakistani media reported.

Lodhi said that at a meeting with US secretary of state John Kerry urged Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to limit Pakistan's atomic program . In response, Sharif told Kerry that what was expected of Pakistan must also be implemented by India, according to Lodhi.

"The world should first put an end to nuclear activities undertaken by India," Lodhi told reporters, adding that Pakistan's inclusion in the Nuclear Suppliers Group was also discussed during the meeting with Kerry.

Pakistan's foreign secretary Aizaz Chaudhry, who addressed the press conference with Lodhi, said that "no other state had acted against terrorism as much as Pakistan had."

These comments were a precursor to Pakistan PM Sharif's address to the UN General Assembly , which is scheduled for later today. In fact, foreign minister Sushma Swaraj is also scheduled to address the same forum this week.

While the focus of Swaraj's speech is going to be the Uri terror attack - in which 18 soldiers were killed - Sharif is expected to focus on the unrest in Kashmir.

The Pakistani PM's speech, though, is going to be overshadowed by news that two US lawmakers today introduced legislation in the US Congress to designate Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism . India has found strong evidence that the Uri attack was a Pakistan-sponsored one. Leaders around the world, including those of the US, France and the UK, among others, condemned the attack and vigorously called for an end to State-supported terror anywhere in the world.

"PM's speech is going to be important. PM Nawaz is going to present a strong case of occupied Kashmir in front of the world," Chaudhry said today.

"He also said that PM Nawaz would also speak about Indian involvement in Pakistan during his address," an article in Pakistan's The News International said.

The Pakistani newspaper claims that at Sharif's meeting with Kerry, both "expressed strong concern at the recent violence in Kashmir - particularly the army base attack - and the need for all sides to reduce tensions."

ISLAMABAD: In what is being seen as further evidence of the baselessness of Indian claims of a cross-border surgical strike, the United Nations said its mission tasked with monitoring the ceasefire line between India and Pakistan "has not directly observed" any firing along the LoC.
The UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) "has not directly observed any firing across the LoC related to the latest incident," Stephane Dujarric, spokesperson for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon told reporters on Saturday.
When asked how the UNMOGIP did not observe any firing despite claims by India of surgical strikes across the Line of Control, he reiterated that UNMOGIP has not "directly observed" any of the firing.
"They are obviously aware of the reports of these presumed violations and are talking to the relevant concerned authorities," he was quoted as saying.
He said the UN observer group was "aware" of reports of "presumed ceasefire violations" and is in contact with concerned authorities for further information.
"The Secretary General also recalls the role played by UNMOGIP, which is deployed to observe, to the extent possible, developments pertaining to the strict observance of the 1971 ceasefire to report thereon to the Secretary General," he said.
On the other hand, a Japanese magazine issued a report ruling out the possibility of surgical strikes at the LoC, in the presence of Pakistan's missile system. "Pakistan's air surveillance is also highly advanced," it stated.
The report further said that Indian military is not capable of conducting surgical strikes in the first place, for it lacks the defence equipment required in such operations.