Please do not vote for the Donald

Lol. Let's look at these policies...

TRUMP: We're going to be cutting tremendous amounts of money and waste and fraud and abuse. But, no, I'm not cutting services, but I am cutting spending.ÿBut I may cut Department of Education-- Common Core is a very bad thing. I think that it should be local education. If you look at a Jeb Bush and some of these others, they want children to be educated by Washington, D.C. bureaucrats.

TRUMP:
Competition is why I'm very much in favor of school choice. Let schools compete for kids. I guarantee that if you forced schools to get better or close because parents didn't want to enroll their kids there, they would get better. Those schools that weren't good enough to attract students would close, and that's a good thing.
For two decades I've been urging politicians to open the schoolhouse doors and let parents decide which schools are best for their children. Professional educators look to claim that doing so would be the end of good public schools. Better charter or magnet schools would drain the top kids out of that system, or hurt the morale of those left behind. Suddenly, the excellence that comes from competition is being criticized.

So, he wants the schools to do more with less... That's not new. That is the same policies that republicans have been using 4ever.

This is new: kids should compete to get into the best public schools. Now, what does this mean exactly? How are the poor kids from bad schools going to get the opportunity to learn anything? They don't. Pretty clear about that.
...such an inclusive man though. He sure is ready to help everyone in the US. Oh, and what has he based his opinions on? What works in the sleazy real estate market is how he wants everything in the US to be run. Let the special needs kids get left in a terrible school. That's fine with you, Mr. I Have a Private Education and Superior For It.

I read that stuff. I could go on. But it's so pathetically disgusting.
I still think Trump hates people...just like you. You are exactly who should vote for him. You obviously have a lot of spare time and no real world experience.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e3b0475219/your-drunk-neighbor-donald-trump?_cc=__t___&_ccid=51e8c012bae39635

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cody-cain/how-fox-news-destroyed-republican-party_b_9644594.html?
"Propaganda is powerful stuff"

Lol, if anyone else happens to read this, note: a collection of disparaging remarks about education is not a policy. And, educating the children of illegals is not the "largest cost to taxpayers". In fact, nothing that @bartender says is true. He claims to have a fancy degree and private education- his claim as to why he is better than others- but, yet, just remember, he is probably drunk. Don't be a hateful person like Trump and his faithful follower the bartender, like Hitler and the Germans who blamed the Jews for all their problems. Remember: War costs our economy more than peace. A collection of quotes and criticisms from Trump while he sits in his office reading the newspaper is not a viable, educated basis of running a our country... unless you want to run it in the ground. Just ask yourself, when exactly was our country great according to a Trump? And, now that we have the internet and our lives are very different than they were just 15 years ago, do you think it is possible to turn back the wheels of time? Do you want to? Or do you want to look to the future and build on what we have that is great? The past is only perfect to those who remember it that way. The future is perfect for those with the vision to embrace it. Blaming illegals for all your problems is not going to help you get a better job unless you aspire to work in the fields picking fruit for less than minimum wage.

brtndr, none of the links you mentioned provide concrete guides to Trump’s education plans. His website is arguably more informative (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/education), but it still pales in comparison to the information and details Clinton provided on her website (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/early-childhood-education/, https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/k-12-education/, https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/).

The OP is not the only one to criticize Trump for his flimsy stance on education. A recent article in USA Today is similarly critical of his vague position on school choice: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/11/18/trumps-school-choice-proposal-mandate-never-talked/94063318/

I am not trying to advocate Clinton’s proposals per se, but she was arguably more persuasive when she referred to her past commitment to reforming education as a senator, first lady, etc. Trump, on the other hand, just agreed to a $25 million settlement in a lawsuit filed against Trump University, which has been justifiably maligned in the press.

Also, the USA Today article you linked above claimed 51% of immigrants are on welfare, not 51% of illegal immigrants. Even if you were to use it to justify some stance against immigration in general, which was not your original purpose, the headline seems more damning than the actual article, in which Linda Chavez points out that second-generation immigrants tend to fare better and a large portion of native-born households are on welfare, too.

As for your other data, I question the reliability of statistics from Center for Immigration Studies and the Federation of American Immigration Reform, both of which have explicit agendas regarding immigration that would potentially compromise their objectivity. I am not the first to question their integrity (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/15/inside-the-center-for-immigration-studies-the-immigration-false-fact-think-tank.html), but if you think The Daily Beast is a poor source of reliable information, consider how information is presented at the CIS.org home page. Most sites attempting to present some modicum of objectivity do not have a stance or slogan like “Low-immigration, Pro-immigrant” or use the data gathered to support partisan plans in such a provocative, hyperbolic fashion (e.g., introducing an article with the headline “Trump’s Plan to Deport Criminal Aliens will address the most disastrous failings of the Obama administration’s faux-enforcement regime”).

It’s fascinating when you consider the different ways data from ICE and DHS have been interpreted by the Pew Research Center, The Migration Policy Institute, and the Center of Immigration Studies. Like CIS, I think you are drawing conclusions from a selective interpretation of the data. You claim that FAIR “has estimated that the cost of annual government benefits for illegal immigrants is $113 Billion a year.” The source you provided actually claims the following: “Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.” Politifact had a bit to say about this statistic when Donald Trump gave the $113 billion figure in one of his speeches (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/01/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-illegal-immigration-costs-113-bi/). Regardless, neither Trump nor FAIR is claiming illegal immigrants are receiving $113 billion in Medicaid and other welfare benefits. FAIR estimates that fraudulent use of Medicaid by illegal aliens amounts to a net loss of about $2.5 billion but acknowledges that “only anecdotal information is available about the amount of Medicaid usage by illegal aliens who use stolen identities.”

The articles about identity theft are only peripherally related because they mainly focus on the burdens identity theft imposes on its victims. In other words, you are inaccurately representing unrelated statistics from different sources and combining them to make a false claim: “The most common way that 51% of illegal immigrants are receiving an estimated $113 Billion annually in government tax payer funded benefits (despite not having a legal social security number) is to obtain an illegal social security number.(DUH!)”

Are you supposed to be showing the OP how to construct “a reasoned argument based on empirical evidence”? If so, you’ve failed miserably. Immigration is incredibly complicated. It is both misleading and counterproductive to ignore the struggles both Democrats and Republicans have faced while working to reform immigration, and there are quite a few reports available that explain the nuances campaign speeches, slogans, and tweets miss, including but not limited to the following examples:

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/understanding-potential-impact-executive-action-immigration-enforcement
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/unauthorized-immigrants-criminal-convictions-who-might-be-priority-removal
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/21/unauthorized-immigrant-population-stable-for-half-a-decade/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/modern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065/

More important, both parties have different priorities that are worth considering. None of this has anything to do with Trump, a wealthy businessman/reality TV star/president-elect who wooed voters using the same ridiculous antics that attracted Apprentice viewers. Some would argue his approach does not exactly promote reasoned, rational discourse on the issues. Personally, I think the entire election was a farce.

Finally, while I would agree that it's a good idea to support one's conclusions with examples, I would not assume someone's reasons for not supporting a candidate are unfounded simply because the person assumes his or her conclusions are obvious and can't be bothered to provide supporting examples or sources in a casual forum like this. For example, I will assume you have legitimate reasons for dismissing the entire public school system even though you have not explained your position (don't bother). Similarly, a number of political scientists did not bother to support their petition against Trump with specific examples (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/07/a-group-of-political-scientists-says-trumps-attacks-on-our-democracy-are-unprecedented-and-dangerous/?utm_term=.fbf021c09ce6). In their case, they backed their claims with their names and positions. In my case, I simply assume Trump's buffoonery is self-evident and that the large number of people who have spoken out against him can provide ample clues as to how he has alienated them.