The Trump Presidency – 2016

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Bottom line: I agree with more of Trump’s policies and ideas than I do the Democrats.

I'll try to be open-minded on what these policies might be, but this is what Trump (with some general Republican stances) boils down to me, and I can't find any of it appealing:

1. Shit on immigrants
2. Shit on non-Christians
3. Shit on non-whites
4. Shit on LGBTQ people
5. Shit on allies
6. Breaks for the rich/shit on labor
7. Shit on the environment
8. Enact anything that will benefit me, my donors, my rich friends
9. Cloud EVERYTHING so facts no longer matter
10. Shit on the media (well, this plays into 9)

That's just off the top of my head. Everyone is screwing us, everyone is our enemy.

Yeah, I'd say the Clintons were probably guilty of 8, and to some extent 6. But that's nothing in comparison.

Fear? Most of those points are based in fear. Fear of the Other, fear of losing what you have because everything has to be a zero-sum game and if someone else benefits, that means you lose. Democrat constituents may get worked up, but IMO it's because they in many cases are getting the short end of the stick. Republicans on the other hand have the fear that they *may* wind up in that position if they stop stepping on the throats of the Other. (Even if in reality, they already are getting the short end of the stick by the system set up by those they're politically supporting). THAT is fear.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I'll try to be open-minded on what these policies might be, but this is what Trump (with some general Republican stances) boils down to me, and I can't find any of it appealing:

1. Shit on immigrants
2. Shit on non-Christians
3. Shit on non-whites
4. Shit on LGBTQ people
5. Shit on allies
6. Breaks for the rich/shit on labor
7. Shit on the environment
8. Enact anything that will benefit me, my donors, my rich friends
9. Cloud EVERYTHING so facts no longer matter
10. Shit on the media (well, this plays into 9)

I think its very important to add the open praise of murderous totalitarians to this list. But otherwise, yeah, pretty much agreed.


Also I think that we see a lot of conservatives on this board who don't agree with democrat policies but who cannot find a way to support Trump himself. If Trump is removed because he is a criminal and possibly guilty of treason, Hillary Clinton does not become president. Mike Pence does. Supporting Trump as everyone around him goes to jail, as his entire cabinet quits on him or gets fired because they aren't loyal enough to him, when you could just freaking have President Mike Pence... its hard for me to reconcile at this point.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I'll try to be open-minded on what these policies might be, but this is what Trump (with some general Republican stances) boils down to me, and I can't find any of it appealing:

1. Shit on immigrants
2. Shit on non-Christians
3. Shit on non-whites
4. Shit on LGBTQ people
5. Shit on allies
6. Breaks for the rich/shit on labor
7. Shit on the environment
8. Enact anything that will benefit me, my donors, my rich friends
9. Cloud EVERYTHING so facts no longer matter
10. Shit on the media (well, this plays into 9)

That's just off the top of my head. Everyone is screwing us, everyone is our enemy.

Yeah, I'd say the Clintons were probably guilty of 8, and to some extent 6. But that's nothing in comparison.

Fear? Most of those points are based in fear. Fear of the Other, fear of losing what you have because everything has to be a zero-sum game and if someone else benefits, that means you lose. Democrat constituents may get worked up, but IMO it's because they in many cases are getting the short end of the stick. Republicans on the other hand have the fear that they *may* wind up in that position if they stop stepping on the throats of the Other. (Even if in reality, they already are getting the short end of the stick by the system set up by those they're politically supporting). THAT is fear.

Firstly, I don’t agree with your list at all. You’re simplifying each issue, and I don’t see point 1, 2, or 3 at all. I see the optics maybe seeming that way because of his mouth, complete lack of grace and the rabid media coverage. Point 1, I don’t see him shitting on immigrants, I see him trying to secure the border. I don’t see the drawback in that. Other than that, I cant remember him shitting on immigrants. I’m open-minded, and I’d like to see where he did. If what you show me is about the caravan and the potential wall, I probably won’t agree with the basics of immigration and the rule of law with regard to securing borders. I remember he called some country a shithole, but I’m pretty sure just about everyone has said something like that. I also think that there have been tough situations in past presidencies at the border that would have been just as wrenching to see if they had been covered. It is being shown closely now because it is Trump. That isn’t me saying, “Poor Trump”, it just seems obvious to me.

I can see where people can say he isn’t an advocate for LGBTQ. Quite honestly though, that isn’t an issue at the top of my agenda. I voted for gay marriage and love pretty much everyone, but other than the bathroom stuff, I’m not aware of other times he shit on that community. If he did, I’d be interested in seeing it because I DONT agree with everything he does and I don’t think ignorance is bliss.

I was just thinking that I really don’t fit in anywhere. I guarantee that guys like Jon wouldn’t like a lot of my views, so I guess I could get it from all sides. It’s ok though, because I’m not going away. Well, I am right now because I’m starting to make some chili, but I’ll be back!

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Radii

I think its very important to add the open praise of murderous totalitarians to this list. But otherwise, yeah, pretty much agreed.

If Trump is removed because he is a criminal and possibly guilty of treason, Hillary Clinton does not become president. Mike Pence does. Supporting Trump as everyone around him goes to jail, as his entire cabinet quits on him or gets fired because they aren't loyal enough to him, when you could just freaking have President Mike Pence... its hard for me to reconcile at this point.

I agree with your opening point completely. As far as him being a criminal and guilty of treason, where are the facts, the convictions, the final findings of such things. I can see you wanting that to be true and who knows, it might be, but it’s like people have completely left behind reason with regard to the process, made a final conclusion and are sitting on it like a hen on an egg. I guess I’m just waiting for something actually criminal (misdemeanors aside) to be presented with all dots fairly invested, connected and then looking at what’s finally laid out. If the facts show all the things he is accused of show he’s guilty, then get him out. I don’t give a fuck about Trump, or any other politician for that matter (other than Doug LaMalfa, because I know him and his family). I just want to see everything before jumping off the cliff.

[NobodyHere]

Meet the newest Republican talking point:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/suspect-i...uthorities-say

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I’m out and about, but will give a quick answer. My first reaction is that I support Trump, not because I like him, his tweets, his rudeness, et cetera, but because the other side seems to be a much scarier option. I’ve never considered myself a Republican, although I’m more conservative than I am Liberal, but the way the left is acting is so over the top and aggressive, it makes Trump look completely controlled and measured. I turn on CNN and MSNBC and it’s as if everyday is the apocalypse. It looks completely ridiculous and deluded to me. According to them, the sky is falling everyday, and eventually, it’s just noise to a lot of folks. Fox is deeply flawed too, but in a different way.

I don't think your point about CNN and MSNBC is wrong in a vacuum, they're trash news preaching to the choir, but it's hard for me to sympathize with your level of shock without ignoring the conservative media history for all of Obama's reign, including Trump himself continually using those platforms to suggest that the dude shouldn't be president because Donald had never personally seen the President's birth certificate.

Even if we allow that CNN and MSNBC are worse Chicken Littles than their conservative counterparts for the sake of argument, it seems to ignore the massive scale difference of what Trump's been accused. Clinton absolutely perjured himself trying to avoid responsibility for some skeezy sex based on abusing the power of his office, and for all I know/care Obama WASN'T born in this country, but Trump's being accused of compromising our election process for his own personal financial gain, with the help of our largest Cold War enemy. That doesn't move your compass at all?

Does world view count for anything in your view? And I'm not suggesting that it necessarily should, just making the semi-obvious point that beyond CNN and MSNBC the rest of the developed world's press and political leaders also seems pretty united in their appraisal of the dude as dangerous and unhinged.

My own bias is creeping through, but I feel like reading between the lines about policies and threats that your #1 concern is still lowering personal taxes. Is that accurate in any way, or am I just pulling that out of my own butt? That would be easier for my feeble brain to swallow, than the suggestion that Trump isn't all that remarkable.

[cuervo72]

Trump: Mexico Not Sending Us Their Best; Criminals, Drug Dealers And Rapists Are Crossing Border | Video | RealClearPolitics

This was him in campaign mode:

DONALD TRUMP: When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically.

The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.

Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.

It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably— probably— from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast.

1. Mexico is not our friend
2. Mexicans who are here are not the "best," they bring problems. ("Some" may be good, but the implication here seems to be that most aren't.)
3. It's not only Mexicans who are problems. South Americans, Latin Americans, Middle Easterners - also problems.

I don't think his stance has really changed since then. He paints with a broad brush -- people coming over the border are drug dealers, rapists. Any that aren't are drains on the system, and are basically stealing our stuff. Playing taxpayers for saps. To the tune of $200 billion. ANNUALLY.

A wall will somehow magically solve this, because of course a wall is impenetrable. Never mind that more people currently staying here illegally are not here because they snuck in but because they overstayed visas. Or that most drugs come here via air or sea. Oh right - and Mexico is not paying for this solution which doesn't really solve the above problems, nor are they going to pay for its upkeep.

Beyond my belief that a wall wouldn't work, I don't like where I think Trump's sentiment comes from. I think it is a symbol which says "I don't like these people and I want to keep them out."* (Even more because they're sure to become dirty Democrats!) Oh right - and the ones who ARE here, we should maybe change the rules to get rid of them, too.

On LGBTQ issues, I'll defer to Thomkal, even though I have more than a passing interest in this. I don't think his administration is very friendly on these issues, though.


* That's before we get to child separations, kids in cages, deploying troops to the border while suggesting they are cleared to open fire...

[Bee]

Originally Posted by panerd

QQQ: 123 TO 152 (24%)
DIA: 197 to 228 (16%)

Hopefully one would have a better investment strategy than putting all their money in Nasdaq tracking stocks.

I dont play the red/blue game was quite happy with Obama's and now Trumps gains and quite pissed with Bushs losses. Would like the president to have no effect.on my.money but wont complain about gains.

Over the last year QQQ has been sporadic with no real gain year to date. QQQ was 156 this time last year. So basically all that gain was in year 1 when Trump wasn't quite so "hands on".

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I don't think your point about CNN and MSNBC is wrong in a vacuum, they're trash news preaching to the choir, but it's hard for me to sympathize with your level of shock without ignoring the conservative media history for all of Obama's reign, including Trump himself continually using those platforms to suggest that the dude shouldn't be president because Donald had never personally seen the President's birth certificate.

I don’t remember much about that because I really didn’t watch the news back then, so I’ll take your word. Either way, the entertainment direction news is going these days irritates me, regardless of where it’s coming from.

Even if we allow that CNN and MSNBC are worse Chicken Littles than their conservative counterparts for the sake of argument, it seems to ignore the massive scale difference of what Trump's been accused. Clinton absolutely perjured himself trying to avoid responsibility for some skeezy sex based on abusing the power of his office, and for all I know/care Obama WASN'T born in this country, but Trump's being accused of compromising our election process for his own personal financial gain, with the help of our largest Cold War enemy. That doesn't move your compass at all?

Does world view count for anything in your view? And I'm not suggesting that it necessarily should, just making the semi-obvious point that beyond CNN and MSNBC the rest of the developed world's press and political leaders also seems pretty united in their appraisal of the dude as dangerous and unhinged.

Well I noticed you used the word “accused” in regard to Trump. I think people might be forgetting what “accused” means. Whether a person is the most distasteful, awful, miserable person ever or not, they deserve full due process.

As far as how the world views the US and if I care, the answer is complicated. In a way, I do care....but as I’m typing that, I’m not sure why I care. In one sense, I care about our closest allies, even as incompetent as they seem right now in France, Germany and UK. I think that is mostly loyalty though. I wouldn’t WANT to care if we were to be considered “one of the guys” by certain members of the worlds nations because I think a lot of them run their countries like shit. I don’t care to give those countries the idea that their flawed systems of government are anywhere near acceptable. I’m not talking about whoever is in office, I’m talking about the system as a whole.

My own bias is creeping through, but I feel like reading between the lines about policies and threats that your #1 concern is still lowering personal taxes. Is that accurate in any way, or am I just pulling that out of my own butt? That would be easier for my feeble brain to swallow, than the suggestion that Trump isn't all that remarkable.

Not at all true, but that’s ok. Assuming that a stats nerd on a site like this would be an economic wizard or whatever, is understandable. I’m not an economic expert. I’ve probably given a lot more to the government in taxes than I should have over the years because I didn’t pay enough attention to detail. In fact, I’m on disability for my seizures and mental stuff right now, so amassing money isn’t on my radar. I’m just trying to get by. I’ll be working again soon, so things will get easier. Anyway, I like money. I’d like to get more money. But money has never been my focus. I’m not sure why.

Most of my voting is based on my personal ethics. It’s hard to vote like that, so I’ve mostly voted libertarian because it fit most closely. My views are just all over. I’m against the death penalty. I’m against abortion. I’m pro-environment. I’m not isolationist, but I care more about every single american than I do about the rest of the world (I don’t mean on a human level, but on a practical level). I’m a capitalist. I’m against hate of all kind.

I gotta eat now.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Well I noticed you used the word “accused” in regard to Trump. I think people might be forgetting what “accused” means. Whether a person is the most distasteful, awful, miserable person ever or not, they deserve full due process.

As far as how the world views the US and if I care, the answer is complicated. In a way, I do care....but as I’m typing that, I’m not sure why I care. In one sense, I care about our closest allies, even as incompetent as they seem right now in France, Germany and UK. I think that is mostly loyalty though. I wouldn’t WANT to care if we were to be considered “one of the guys” by certain members of the worlds nations because I think a lot of them run their countries like shit. I don’t care to give those countries the idea that their flawed systems of government are anywhere near acceptable. I’m not talking about whoever is in office, I’m talking about the system as a whole.
.

You are talking semantics with due process. Do you honestly think Trump is innocent in everything swirling around him?

Doesn't it bother you literally everyone around him has been implicated in a crime or made a plea deal to avoid charges? Is this really what you want from a leader?

Regarding the worldview. It doesn't bother you that he cozies up to despots? Speaks highly of Putin and Un. Ignores the murder of a journalist because of personal business interests. Leaves the Kurds to be slaughtered. Those things don't bother you?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Regarding the worldview. It doesn't bother you that he cozies up to despots? Speaks highly of Putin and Un. Ignores the murder of a journalist because of personal business interests. Leaves the Kurds to be slaughtered. Those things don't bother you?

Let me reword this. He openly supports leaders who will do whatever is necessary to support his own world view. They will fight to protect their power at all costs, and eliminate anyone who dares cross paths. He ignores the exertion of that power if it doesn't directly impact him. He is ok with the suppression of voices that may negatively impact him. He is fine with human rights violations that the US has always been opposed to. He has shown over and over, going back years in his businesses that he will stab contractors in the back, it shouldn't be a surprise that he would be ok with leaving people who have fought to support the US, yet their loss doesn't really impact the US or him at all. In the end, he is still, who we thought he was be 2 years ago. He has introduced a substantial deviation from US policy and that is alarming. To say that this is ok, because it's different, I think fails to recognize that decisions like these do have consequences. They may not come home to roost before 2022, but they will come home. I think it's things like this that come to mind when people think about Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia. Even now, we're still dealing with the fallout from the choices of Bush II. It's hard to support a guy who simply doesn't behave in a way that has lead greatest time of peace the planet has ever known. Those types of change do cause genuine concern.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

As far as him being a criminal and guilty of treason, where are the facts, the convictions, the final findings of such things.

Sorry, I confused two separate points there. Let take impeachment out of it entirely.

You've been talking about Trump being a better option than a democrat. That was relevant in 2016 during the election, but I don't believe that if you don't actively support Donald Trump then your only other option is to be a democrat. Many conservatives, including some on this board, find Donald Trump to be completely reprehensible and without any merit as a president, these people haven't become liberals, they want a different sort of GOP or a different sort of leader of the conservative party in the United States.

That's not what I'm hearing from you currently. I'm hearing active support for enough of his policies to support Donald Trump, in his current state of being with all the policy and various other things he's said since becoming president. Let me be clear that I am not saying that because of this you therefore support everything he does and says. But I've seen so many other conservatives say that Trump has said and done so many horrible, reprehensible, indefensible things, that they can no longer support or defend him in any way, but are still republicans and still believe in many conservative ideals, and their active goal is to try to heal and repair the republican party.

So I'm kinda saying the same thing as lathum I guess? I've known you for a long time and know you to be a caring, passionate person, so my current feeling is one of surprise that you're able to reconcile so many of the opinions that even a large number of republicans find to be completely reprehensible and offer support to the man.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

As far as how the world views the US and if I care, the answer is complicated. In a way, I do care....but as I’m typing that, I’m not sure why I care.

I understand that to some degree, because I had the same kind of hesitation even as I was typing the question. On the one hand it seems ridiculous to ignore outside opinion of respected leaders and thinkers, let alone the global strategic ramifications, but on the other hand the whole point is that those voices don't even live in the country (and even our politicians struggle to understand the lives of the 'common' American), so how much should you really value outsider's opinions, if you feel your own priorities are being served? I can get that.

I appreciate the response.

[RainMaker]

EXCLUSIVE: Read Desperate Emails From People Scammed by A.G. Matt Whitaker’s Business Associates - Hit & Run : Reason.com

[Lathum]

Would love your thoughts on the wall Schmidty. It doesn’t bother you that he promised Mexico would pay for it? How about how he is acting about it now?

[mauchow]

Considering I know a dozen people who voted for him because Mexico was going to pay for the wall, I'd say yeah, they don't care how it gets done.

[QuikSand]

I know it's folly to continue to fall for the ongoing mess here, but I sometimes am just too weak to overcome it...

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "....The United States looses soooo much money on Trade with Mexico under NAFTA, over 75 Billion Dollars a year (not including Drug Money which would be many times that amount), that I would consider closing the Southern Border a “profit making operation.� We build a Wall or....."

The man genuinely believes that a trade deficit means we are just handing the other country cash. That we are "losing money."

We buy stuff from Mexico because we (American people and companies) WANT the stuff from Mexico more than we want the money. They are not robbing us. They are BENEFITING us.

It is not necessarily a good thing to have a trade deficit with a given country... but it bears absolutely no relationship with the sort of "deal" he seems to think it is. He treats it like we're haggling price over the land for a new hotel... and that it's a pure zero sum game on "who gets the money." Trade isn't anything like that, and thinking about it that way (using that term very loosely) is unbelievably ill-advised (also using the back end of that term very loosely).

I understand that this isn't really even in the top 10 or maybe top 50 of things to really worry about. But it's totally awful.

[Schmidty]

I’ve read some of the questions posed and I’m thinking about them, although reading some of them, I imagine the questioner grabbing me by the collar, and shoving me against the wall, demanding the answer they want. I don’t know that there is an answer that I can give that will really satisfy anyone unless I simply agree, or change my morals to fit others. I can’t do that.

Trump was the first Replubican I voted for since 2000. I’ve said again and again that I understand that he’s reprehensible in a lot of ways. People keep saying that a lot of Republicans find him unsupportable and I get that too, but I’m not a Republican. I’m not sure what I am, really. To those saying that there is no way that voting for Hilary, or another Democrat would be worse, I pose this question: Would you sacrifice your most important beliefs and vote for someone who is totally out of step with your core view or views, becuse the other option was reprehensible? Maybe you would. I don’t know. I don’t even know if you’d be wrong. I just can’t. I’m not a one issue voter, but I do have core of beliefs that I won’t and can’t betray, because then I truly would be a hypocrite in my own eyes. I don’t think there will ever be someone who fits all of my views, so I have to make tough choices and tolerate the bad with the good when I vote. It’s probably easier for a lot of you to vote because you can vote party line and it fits your conscience fully. I, and others in the middle of the two-party struggle, don’t have that option. Like I said, I have to make tough choices, and then live with them. I will say, that if it is proven without a doubt that he did something more than being reprehensible and deplorable, then of course I say put him in jail and remove him from office. I’m not plugging my ears and yelling “La, la, la, la!” or something. I’m just waiting for full results before I go down that road.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I know it's folly to continue to fall for the ongoing mess here, but I sometimes am just too weak to overcome it...

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "....The United States looses soooo much money on Trade with Mexico under NAFTA, over 75 Billion Dollars a year (not including Drug Money which would be many times that amount), that I would consider closing the Southern Border a “profit making operation.� We build a Wall or....."

The man genuinely believes that a trade deficit means we are just handing the other country cash. That we are "losing money."

We buy stuff from Mexico because we (American people and companies) WANT the stuff from Mexico more than we want the money. They are not robbing us. They are BENEFITING us.

It is not necessarily a good thing to have a trade deficit with a given country... but it bears absolutely no relationship with the sort of "deal" he seems to think it is. He treats it like we're haggling price over the land for a new hotel... and that it's a pure zero sum game on "who gets the money." Trade isn't anything like that, and thinking about it that way (using that term very loosely) is unbelievably ill-advised (also using the back end of that term very loosely).

I understand that this isn't really even in the top 10 or maybe top 50 of things to really worry about. But it's totally awful.

See, this is the kind of post I want to see. Well reasoned, pretty unemotional, filled with info. I don’t know much about trade or economics, so getting more knowledge on the subject is great. I’m not close-minded. I think that the people who want to turn Trump supporters are going about it in the wrong way. Screaming in people’s faces and generally being obnoxiously aggressive is a terrible way to reason with people who have the ability to do so.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I understand that this isn't really even in the top 10 or maybe top 50 of things to really worry about. But it's totally awful.

I'd definitely put his lack of understanding on international trade in the top 10. His insistence on altering or canceling trade deals without a real knowledge of their details is a major problem for me.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I think that the people who want to turn Trump supporters are going about it in the wrong way. .

The problem with this statement is there is nothing you can do to turn most Trump supporters.

They take the one or two things that he has done well, the economy being the biggest one, and use that to justify their support in spite of the countless horrible things he has done, the lies he has told, the rants he has gone on, the way he treats people like shit, etc...

They literally refuse to admit his incompetence.

Hell, you aren't even giving us examples of things he has accomplished that make you support him. Maybe I am missing it, but really all I see from you in justifying your support is he hasn't been found guilty in a court of law, and the constant news cycle jumps on anything remotely negative (which is true).

I'm not trying to paint you in to a corner and force an answer, I'm really not, but if people haven't changed their minds about him now nothing he says or does at this point will.

[Flasch186]

We have an acquaintance in the military, secretive shit, and he finally said, "I'm really over Trump." which was the first inclination ever that he wasn't towing the line for every excuse or spin that has come out. The thing that really set him off? Mattis quitting. I guess the military saw him as a really good leader and this, this is the first chink in the armor for what I view as one of the greatest examples of groupthink in the social media era I've ever seen.

[molson]

I know the shutdowns piss off a lot of conservative civilian military employees - I know my cousin is one of them. A lot of them (especially those who used to serve) also don't like that Trump was a draft dodger.

The wall thing is just crazy to me. He got elected on a promise of a free wall that someone else was going to pay for. There was never any real plan or concept of how that is going to work, so now he just wants us to pay billions for it. Trump opponents all said that's exactly what was going to happen.

Trump supporters believed him, and, don't care that he suckered them, I guess?

[JPhillips]

There’s never been an answer to how the wall will work along the Rio Grande. Will we cut off access to the river for Americans or will we steal territory from Mexico?

[digamma]

I'm also pretty flummoxed by the Republican strategy of not negotiating during the shutdown. It's as if there is a belief that leverage will improve when the Dems control the House.

And incidentally, there is some relationship between the wall and the shutdown and the Quik trade post (which I too applaud). Trump has since said that Mexico will pay for the wall through all of the gains we are going to have through new trade deals. So, see the explanation above...

[stevew]

Even if we cut the deficit with Mexico by 20 billion. Dollars a year, the Wall costs 25b post tax dollars(borrowed). So we'd need like, I dunno, 12-15 years of increased revenue vs Mexico taxable here at 20% just to break even?(assuming reducing the trade surplus would have something like 2bn in tax revenue increased on our books here?) I mean it's not just tit for tat, right? Reducing the deficit doesn't just automatically add that much in actual cash, right?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by molson

The wall thing is just crazy to me. He got elected on a promise of a free wall that someone else was going to pay for. There was never any real plan or concept of how that is going to work, so now he just wants us to pay billions for it. Trump opponents all said that's exactly what was going to happen.

Trump supporters believed him, and, don't care that he suckered them, I guess?

I, for one, never believed Mexico would pay for it but I definitely support the idea of a wall. So no, I don't feel suckered.

I could believe that Trump could negotiate/force a trade deal that would be favorable, save the US money and he could claim that paid for it ... but he never said that and not sure if the new NAFTA deal (or whatever they call it) does "save" money.

I believe many Trump supporters know he was BS'ing about Mexico paying for it but willing to accept it because he was proposing something radical and he wasn't Hillary.

(I, on the other hand, supported it, knew he was BS'ing, and voted for Hillary)

[JPhillips]

Since Trump thinks tariffs are paid by foreign countries, why doesn’t he come up with a wall tariff that would raise 25 mil in five or ten years?

Obviously it doesn’t work like that, but it would check off all the boxes for Trump.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I definitely support the idea of a wall.

Why? What will it keep out?

Trump scream it will keep out drugs, criminals, etc...

Do you honestly think there won't be a work around for those people?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by digamma

I'm also pretty flummoxed by the Republican strategy of not negotiating during the shutdown. It's as if there is a belief that leverage will improve when the Dems control the House.

And incidentally, there is some relationship between the wall and the shutdown and the Quik trade post (which I too applaud). Trump has since said that Mexico will pay for the wall through all of the gains we are going to have through new trade deals. So, see the explanation above...

I believe they think that their leverage will improve against the House Freedom Party peeps, not the Democrats strangely enough.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Why? What will it keep out?

Trump scream it will keep out drugs, criminals, etc...

Do you honestly think there won't be a work around for those people?

Let's assume the $25B or whatever funded a fully built "beautiful wall" and the people, systems behind it. You don't think that will decrease the number of unauthorized immigrants coming thru the border?

What is the Democratic party line to reducing the unauthorized immigrants?

EDIT - I'll toss in I want to also see a holistic immigration reform that included attracting more highly educated (e.g. brain drain the other countries), guest worker programs etc. and not just focused on our southern neighbors. However, I'll take a fully funded wall vs nothing at all.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There’s never been an answer to how the wall will work along the Rio Grande. Will we cut off access to the river for Americans or will we steal territory from Mexico?

The "wall money" he wants is for grifting like all the real estate he did for his entire life. That's why McConnell incredibly suggested that we just toss a billion dollars in slush money for the wall a couple weeks ago. You aren't going to get me impressed by any wall, but there's no plan, just "Give me money or I'll burn everything."

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by molson

The wall thing is just crazy to me. He got elected on a promise of a free wall that someone else was going to pay for. There was never any real plan or concept of how that is going to work, so now he just wants us to pay billions for it. Trump opponents all said that's exactly what was going to happen.

Trump supporters believed him, and, don't care that he suckered them, I guess?

The thing is, the wall isn't what got him elected, I don't think.

Nominated? Yeah, that's an easier sell. It was a great campaign line that probably separated him from the rest of the Republican primary pack, because primaries are base elections and the Republican base ate that shit up.

That said, no, Trump supporters don't care that they got suckered. Because the alternative was Hillary Clinton, and for the diehards, when Trump said "I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not lose votes," that wasn't a joke. Would they trade Trump for one of the other Republican candidates at this point? Yeah, maybe. Perhaps even "probably" for a non-trivial chunk of his 2016 electorate.

But they don't care that he said "my tax plan is going to cost me money" and then ended up being a giveaway for corporations and the 1%; they don't care that he said "we'll build a wall and Mexico will pay for it" and now he's throwing a temper tantrum that Democrats aren't willing to fund his grift; they don't care that he's possibly in violation of the Emoluments Clause; they don't care that he was trying to do business with a hostile foreign power at the same time as he was trying to get elected President, and lied about it at the time; they don't care.

They don't care about any of that, because they wanted two things out of this election, and they got them:

1) Hillary Clinton ain't Prez.

2) Republicans got to steal a SCOTUS nomination from Barack Obama and replace a swing vote with, ostensibly, a rock-ribbed conservative (and no, they don't care about the sexual assault allegations, either, no matter how "credible" they found the accuser(s), because the important thing to them was a fifth vote to potentially overturn Roe; anything that served that purpose was going to be okay with his base). Shoot, there's a non-trivial chance he'll get to replace a liberal with a conservative.

Donald Trump could fellate Vladimir Putin on Fifth Avenue and he wouldn't lose votes from that crowd. There is nothing he could do, going forward, that would be a bridge too far after everything we've seen in the last three years. The Rubicon has been crossed repeatedly and his approval levels among Republicans have remain fundamentally stable.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Let's assume the $25B or whatever funded a fully built "beautiful wall" and the people, systems behind it. You don't think that will decrease the number of unauthorized immigrants coming thru the border?

What is the Democratic party line to reducing the unauthorized immigrants?

EDIT - I'll toss in I want to also see a holistic immigration reform that included attracting more highly educated (e.g. brain drain the other countries), guest worker programs etc. and not just focused on our southern neighbors. However, I'll take a fully funded wall vs nothing at all.

Most experts will tell you there are far more effective ways to use that 25 billion if that's you're goal. The wall would reduce unauthorized immigration but not as well as more manpower, better technology, etc for the same cost.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I’ve read some of the questions posed and I’m thinking about them, although reading some of them, I imagine the questioner grabbing me by the collar, and shoving me against the wall, demanding the answer they want. I don’t know that there is an answer that I can give that will really satisfy anyone unless I simply agree, or change my morals to fit others. I can’t do that.

I think this is a large part of the divide right now - people have this feeling about what may happen, or that they can't make a difference, so they don't talk. They don't answer the questions already posed, or ask the ones they are curious about themselves. And the gap widens.

Probably a function of the social media disconnectivity these days, coupled with the ridiculous talking heads at most of the media outlets.

[molson]

My biggest concern with the wall, which obviously isn't worth a thought to Trump and his supporters, is environmental. We'd be fucking up a lot migration patterns and access to resources for wildlife and plantlife that has done very well in that area due to federal protection and the absence of human civilization.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ryche

Most experts will tell you there are far more effective ways to use that 25 billion if that's you're goal. The wall would reduce unauthorized immigration but not as well as more manpower, better technology, etc for the same cost.

I am sure there are better ways to use the $25B. But like everything else, there is no sure thing, things get renegotiated/diluted in Congress etc.

Trump's Wall seemed to be more of a sure thing than holistic immigration reform so lets do something that may/could help reduce 70% vs wait longer on something that may never come to pass that help reduce 90%.

The Senate passed something in 2013 or 2014 which seemed pretty good. Unfortunately, got stuff in House and never voted on.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Let's assume the $25B or whatever funded a fully built "beautiful wall" and the people, systems behind it. You don't think that will decrease the number of unauthorized immigrants coming thru the border?

What is the Democratic party line to reducing the unauthorized immigrants?

EDIT - I'll toss in I want to also see a holistic immigration reform that included attracting more highly educated (e.g. brain drain the other countries), guest worker programs etc. and not just focused on our southern neighbors. However, I'll take a fully funded wall vs nothing at all.

Do I think it would reduce the number, probably, but not so much that it would be worth the cost. He screams about the wall and gets his base all riled up about the "bad" people. Says they are all drug dealers, criminals, and rapists. Do you honestly think those people won't still get in?

It may reduce it for a bit, but they will find a way. The wall would be nothing but a symbol of victory to Trumps supports.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by molson

My biggest concern with the wall, which obviously isn't worth a thought to Trump and his supporters, is environmental. We'd be fucking up a lot migration patterns and access to resources for wildlife and plantlife that has done very well in that area due to federal protection and the absence of human civilization.

Yeah, that never factored into my thought process

Similar to fracking, I'm will to pay the environmental price to get off the albatross that is ME oil.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Edward64

...the albatross that is ME oil.

Have you tried (metaphorically) just letting go of the albatross? Because, it might not be as heavy as your intuition, or your news source, is suggesting that it is.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Have you tried (metaphorically) just letting go of the albatross? Because, it might not be as heavy as your intuition, or your news source, is suggesting that it is.

Really?

I see our reliance and paying for ME oil as influencing much of our decisions and presence there and OPEC being able to "hurt" us since the 70's.

Why do you think ME oil is not an albatross?

[thesloppy]

I get frustrated by the immigration argument, because it seems like a bit of a shell game. The GOP has become the party of immigration, but kind of like how "the economy" became a decisive political construct, immigration is a pretty massive term that doesn't mean much on it's own but can appeal to each individual's beliefs by remaining undefined. To one voter "immigration" may mean reducing taxes by reducing undocumented immigrants using public services, to another voter it might be entirely about reducing the likelihood of Muslim terrorists or South American gangsters coming into the country, but by keeping the term nebulous and vague the GOP can appeal to any number of individual concerns without committing to any of them specifically.

Except of course for the promise of a wall, which will be built along exactly one of our borders, which separates us from one other country. If someone is interested in "immigration" specifically targeted at reducing Mexican immigrants for some explicit reason, I can definitely see the appeal, but I fail to see what building a massive, expensive wall against one of our borders offers to any other supporter of immigration reform, other than an extremely expensive baby step in a vaguely supportive direction. I guess in that way it's not unlike gun control bills that are aimed at knocking off very specific tops of very specific icebergs, if only for the purpose of making some notable progress.

[lungs]

From my own contacts within the Latino community, the coyote/desert crossing method of getting here has lost the popularity it had back in the late 90s and early 2000s. For one, it got to be expensive and increasingly dangerous.

How did one of my former employees get her son up here when Nicaragua destabilized even further? She bought him a plane ticket to Miami, which seems to be the best entry point for people that fly here.

I just don't think a coast to coast wall is an effective use of money. I'm fine with a physical barrier in places that make sense, but I don't really believe that there is any true deterrent (short of giving JIMGA free reign in creating border policy) that will effectively stop people from getting here so long as the opportunity to live a vastly improved lifestyle exists here versus their home country.

In the meantime, we need to have an orderly way of bringing people here. Our fertility rate in the United States has been below replacement level since the 1970s. We're going to need more people.

[bronconick]

If they blew $25 billion plus an annual budget on a horde of drones watching the border, I'd roll my eyes but probably shrug it off. At least that would probably work.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Why do you think ME oil is not an albatross?

Because the plentiful availability of domestic and global supply have rendered their dominance in the marketplace to a fraction of what it once was. Neither the Saudis nor OPEC nor "the Middle East" really hold the sway that neocons want to claim, nor that the xenophobic community is committed to believing.

Not saying this is as binary as "important or not at all important." Just suggesting that our investment here is a great deal less when our actual share of imports (not total usage, just imports) from the ME region are maybe a fifth of our total.

It's not like we get 75% of our day-to-day oil usage from middle eastern foreign powers. But that's the implied fact pattern that the hysteria is basically founded on.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by lungs

From my own contacts within the Latino community, the coyote/desert crossing method of getting here has lost the popularity it had back in the late 90s and early 2000s. For one, it got to be expensive and increasingly dangerous.

How did one of my former employees get her son up here when Nicaragua destabilized even further? She bought him a plane ticket to Miami, which seems to be the best entry point for people that fly here.

I just don't think a coast to coast wall is an effective use of money. I'm fine with a physical barrier in places that make sense, but I don't really believe that there is any true deterrent (short of giving JIMGA free reign in creating border policy) that will effectively stop people from getting here so long as the opportunity to live a vastly improved lifestyle exists here versus their home country.

That's kind of been my impression as well, which only makes the idea of the wall more suspect. We effectively already have a border and a wall, and all of the organized malevolent forces have already found a way to bypass the whole thing entirely, probably decades ago, to the point that building a slightly better wall just seems like a useless exercise in stopping the least organized individuals, whose threat is minimal. One would have to compltetly and totally ignore the last 50 years of Floridian culture (INSERT JOKE HERE) and history to pretend that hundreds of miles of ocean is any kind of effective deterrent to South American immigration and the importation of drugs and weapons, let alone a new-and-improved wall of pointy sticks.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

That's kind of been my impression as well, which only makes the idea of the wall more suspect. We effectively already have a border and a wall, and all of the organized malevolent forces have already found a way to bypass the whole thing entirely, probably decades ago, to the point that building a slightly better wall just seems like a useless exercise in stopping the least organized individuals, whose threat is minimal. One would have to compltetly and totally ignore the last 50 years of Floridian culture (INSERT JOKE HERE) and history to pretend that hundreds of miles of ocean is any kind of effective deterrent to South American immigration and the importation of drugs and weapons, let alone a new-and-improved wall of pointy sticks.

It would be nothing but a monument to Trump. He knows this. His base doesn't.

[cuervo72]

Not Trump per se, but this counts for the non-Christian and non-White planks I outlined earlier:

GOP Activists Want To Purge Local Official For Being Muslim

edit: original source article: https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na...228-story.html

[Atocep]

Scott Walker’s parting gift: A corporate welfare deal costing each Wisconsin taxpayer $1,800 | City Pages

The Foxconn deal will be Scott Walker's gift that keeps on giving.

Initially, Foxconn promised to create some 13,000 jobs. But that estimate has been continually pared down since the deal was finished, now falling in the range of 3,000 to 10,000 – with no guarantees. Workers’ average pay will be about $50,000 annually. But those paychecks will funded by Mr. & Mrs. Wisconsin for years to come.

The Wisconsin Budget Project estimates that, at the very least, taxpayers will be covering the first four years of wages for every employee. On the high end, the subsidies could run as much as $587,000 per job – or the first 10 years of each worker’s earnings.

But the most glaring blunder was revealed last week. Wisconsin residents could end up bankrolling employees who don’t even work… in Wisconsin.

That’s the recent finding of the Fiscal Bureau, a nonpartisan arm of the state legislature. It discovered that taxpayers would be on the hook for funding Foxconn employees in other states, as long as their paychecks are run through the Wisconsin plant.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Let's assume the $25B or whatever funded a fully built "beautiful wall" and the people, systems behind it. You don't think that will decrease the number of unauthorized immigrants coming thru the border?

What is the Democratic party line to reducing the unauthorized immigrants?

EDIT - I'll toss in I want to also see a holistic immigration reform that included attracting more highly educated (e.g. brain drain the other countries), guest worker programs etc. and not just focused on our southern neighbors. However, I'll take a fully funded wall vs nothing at all.

Since 2000 the Dems have bargained at least four immigration packages that include extra money and procedures and all four have been rejected by the GOP. The Dems aren't the problem. The problem is that enough GOP electeds want to reduce all but European immigration, and they won't agree to any compromise.