2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika · 27-11-2015 4:20pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Condescend all you wish besides the fact that he is nominally a Republican what on Earth makes him suitable to be President?

He has an extensive resume... most importantly with creating jobs, executive experience, growth, global business savvy, and negotiating skills.

Downsides? Virtually everything he proposes and his timbre. I mean I'd make a list but honestly...

Just as I thought. :rolleyes:

jobbridge4life · 27-11-2015 4:33pm

Amerika wrote: »

He has an extensive resume... most importantly with creating jobs, executive experience, growth, global business savvy, and negotiating skills.

How do his skills in the property development/management business mean he'd be a good President?

Executive experience, running a for profit business, again I'd like to see how this prepares him for the role of President of a country, and if that is the criteria his skills in this regard are hardly exemplary.

'Growth'? What is that? What has he grown? (insert hair joke)

Global business savvy? Again relevance to managing diplomatic relations, or military.

Negotiating skills? You mean his capacity to offend and outrage? Or his baseless nonsense about Mexico paying for a wall or threatening China. Please provide examples of his negotiating skills? Where they were applied, how they compare to other business leaders? How these examples would be of benefit in application as a politician rather than blustering businessman?

Amerika wrote: »

Just as I thought. :rolleyes:

His plans for the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants.
His bizarre attitude towards free trade.
His limited knowledge.
His position on education funding.
his position on climate change.
his constant flip-flopping on virtually every topic.
his ludicrous approach to international relations.
his approach to military intervention.
his intention to reintroduce sanctions on Iran
his refusal to deal with Israeli belligerence.
his position on the 2nd amendment.
And on and on and on and on.

Amerika · 27-11-2015 4:35pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Ah here. Come on man Trump is a disaster, a petulant, entitled, lying, bullying, divisive, nasty individual who happened to have the resources and the connections to make (and lose) vast sums of money. He would be an awful President and I have enough faith the American electorate to believe that a majority of them when in the ballot box will know that too.

You know, every one of those things you list could also be said of Hillary Clinton... plus some.

Amerika · 27-11-2015 7:06pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

How do his skills in the property development/management business mean he'd be a good President?

Executive experience, running a for profit business, again I'd like to see how this prepares him for the role of President of a country, and if that is the criteria his skills in this regard are hardly exemplary.

'Growth'? What is that? What has he grown? (insert hair joke)

Global business savvy? Again relevance to managing diplomatic relations, or military.

Negotiating skills? You mean his capacity to offend and outrage? Or his baseless nonsense about Mexico paying for a wall or threatening China. Please provide examples of his negotiating skills? Where they were applied, how they compare to other business leaders? How these examples would be of benefit in application as a politician rather than blustering businessman?

How… Executive experience. And the President is the executive branch of the US federal government. I think the most successful presidents in our recent history come with executive experience, such as governors. And one-term Senators the worst at President, with Barack Obama being a prime example. That is also the reason Hillary Clinton and Mark Rubio scare me.

And what has he grown? Trump has grown his company by billions, and employing thousands of employees. And he created that wealth by himself. And that also says well for his negotiating savvy.

Again, please remind me of the current candidates that have executive experience, managing diplomatic relations successfully, and something that indicates they would be a great commander-in-chief?

His plans for the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants.
His bizarre attitude towards free trade.
His limited knowledge.
His position on education funding.
his position on climate change.
his constant flip-flopping on virtually every topic.
his ludicrous approach to international relations.
his approach to military intervention.
his intention to reintroduce sanctions on Iran
his refusal to deal with Israeli belligerence.
his position on the 2nd amendment.
And on and on and on and on.

Besides the nonsense about “limited knowledge,” I think you will find the majority of the voting public would find many of the things you list about his stances as being positives, rather than negatives.

Thargor · 27-11-2015 8:59pm

You'd be in favour of blowing 200 billion + whatever the cost of the economic carnage that would follow deporting all illegals then?

Amerika · 27-11-2015 9:18pm

Thargor wrote: »

You'd be in favour of blowing 200 billion + whatever the cost of the economic carnage that would follow deporting all illegals then?

With the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level running about $115 billion, a 2 year payback on investment sounds like a really good deal for the taxpayer.

Thargor · 27-11-2015 9:23pm

Amerika wrote: »

With the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level running about $115 billion annually, a 2 year payback on investment sounds like a really good deal for the taxpayer.

I seriously doubt that figure and you left out the cost associated with the bit where your economy would struggle to function if this plan were (somehow) enacted, dont forget to account for the massive increase in the cost of food and a lot of services either.

Amerika · 27-11-2015 9:37pm

Thargor wrote: »

I seriously doubt that figure and you left out the cost associated with the bit where your economy would struggle to function if this plan were (somehow) enacted, dont forget to account for the massive increase in the cost of food and a lot of services either.

Our economy would struggle to function? Massive increases in the cost of food and other services? Perhaps some, but under most deportation plans some immigrants would be allowed back in under guest worker programs on a as needed basis. Even so, a 3 or 4 year payback on investment is still a wise move as long as we change (or more accurately, clarify) the laws of birthright citizenship.

Thargor · 28-11-2015 12:04am

Guest workers that would need all the same services and wages as regular workers. The plan is completely unworkable, its a childish idea and anyone else would be embarrassed to suggest it, it would never be allowed to happen.

Black Swan · 28-11-2015 3:08am

Amerika wrote: »

Why can’t Trump become POTUS?

The earlier question proposed (that you quoted Amerika) was what would happen if the GOP did not nominate Trump, even if he was still leading in the polls? The GOP does not have to nominate him, high polls or not; they are under no legal obligation to do so. These poll numbers are not votes in an official election. They could nominate one of the 2016 GOP presidential candidates currently in the single digits like Jeb Bush, or low teens like Cruz or Rubio, and dump Trump. What would happen then? Would the party split? Cross-over? Stay at home during election? Or would Trump go back on his promise not to run independent? What's your best guess today, as well as the best guesses of our other US Politics forum members?

jobbridge4life · 28-11-2015 3:18am

Amerika wrote: »

How… Executive experience. And the President is the executive branch of the US federal government. I think the most successful presidents in our recent history come with executive experience, such as governors. And one-term Senators the worst at President, with Barack Obama being a prime example. That is also the reason Hillary Clinton and Mark Rubio scare me.

I said how would his excutive experience in the for profit business which he has successfully and unsuccessfully run over many years be of a benefit to him in running the United States, which I shouldn't need to remind you is not a for profit business. Since you haven't answered except for generalities I'd appreciate if you could refocus your efforts. With regard to your claim regarding the current President, there is much that Obama that can be rightly criticized for and there are whole areas of his leadership that I personally would consider woefully inadequate but to refer to suggest as you have above that he is amongst the worst of your Presidents is simply put laughable and utterly indefensible. It indicates to me that you are so partisan that it may be useless to speak to you.

Amerika wrote: »

And what has he grown? Trump has grown his company by billions, and employing thousands of employees. And he created that wealth by himself. And that also says well for his negotiating savvy.

He has, but he has also bankrupted himself. BTW I enquired especially about your 'growth' comment because you had already mentioned his business and executive experience I wanted to make sure you weren't merely repeating the same justifications. To my disappointment but not surprise it seems you were. Ah well.

Amerika wrote: »

Again, please remind me of the current candidates that have executive experience, managing diplomatic relations successfully, and something that indicates they would be a great commander-in-chief?

With respect it is you who praised Trump first, it falls to you to demonstrate why he is superior to others. You clearly can't.

Amerika wrote: »

Besides the nonsense about “limited knowledge,” I think you will find the majority of the voting public would find many of the things you list about his stances as being positives, rather than negatives.

Trumps limited information on several topics is something that he acknowledges. If the latter point is true its a wonder that they didn't vote for that in the last two presidential elections but regardless what ever the majority thinks is hardly a concern of mine just as it ins't any indication of what is right or proper.

jobbridge4life · 28-11-2015 3:25am

Amerika wrote: »

Our economy would struggle to function? Massive increases in the cost of food and other services? Perhaps some, but under most deportation plans some immigrants would be allowed back in under guest worker programs on a as needed basis. Even so, a 3 or 4 year payback on investment is still a wise move as long as we change (or more accurately, clarify) the laws of birthright citizenship.

So let me get this straight. You support a deportation of millions but with sufficient numbers being readmitted and quickly enough so as not to significantly affect your economy... in essence a revolving door? Out you go, no not too far, come back now.

With all due respect, surely the more prudent course of action is to secure your borders as soon as possible and then without a farcical merry go round of kicking people out just to bring them back, to deal sensibly and calmly with regularising the status of those currently present in the US?

Black Swan · 28-11-2015 4:52am

If Trump wants to capture and deport all illegals (i.e., estimated 11 million), who is going to pay for this massive law enforcement, temporary containment, and transfer operation? Many of these illegals did not simply cross the southern border, and you cannot simply dump them through a door in the Trump Wall into Mexico. Rather an extraordinarily large number overstayed their visas and came from many countries around the world.

In addition to this, what about all the associated costs occurring from single and class action suits against these massive deportations filed by a host of lawyers, the ACLU, other special interest groups, and in the international courts filed by nations where Trump may be dumping millions of unemployed? And while these lawsuits are being adjudicated in the already overburdened court system, who is going to pay for increased temporary jail space, which in many states are overpopulated with prisoners today?

Furthermore, would Trump have to hire thousands of additional government professionals and workers to handle this massive glut on a system that currently is dysfunctional, so dysfunctional that the 11 million got in and stayed in the first place? Does this sound like BIGGER government, with a very simplistic mob appeal platform statement by Trump that ignores the complexities and massive costs to the taxpayer, with a very likely massive increase in the federal deficit as a result? Some may claim that this increase in government workers would only be temporary, but what then happens when Trump then dumps these government workers on the unemployment lists?

And what about the huge negative impact on international relations with Trump dumping millions of unemployed on other nations, many of which may be lesser developed countries that cannot handle significant additional numbers? Will there be Trump Refugee Camps? American is not a closed-system island that is self-contained behind its Trump Wall, and cannot ignore the international impacts of its actions, especially when we are talking 11 million people being dumped. And pointing to the illegals and their nations of origin simplistically proclaiming "shame on you, you entered illegally," or "overstayed your visas illegally" will not mitigate the adverse economic and social impacts of Trump dumping. Can anyone see the Al-Qaeda and ISIS recruiters setting up in Trump Refugee Camps wooing very unhappy, unemployed, and mad-at-US refugees to the cause?

Lastly, and not less significantly, what domestic economic impacts will be realised when Trump captures and removes 11 million consumers, most of whom are working for US businesses at very low payroll costs, and buying US business products and services? The US model of capitalism is a consumer growth model, and the loss of 11 million consumers and cheap workers could plunge the US economy into another recession; i.e. a Trump Recession.

The extraordinary complexities, financial, and international consequences unaddressed by Trump's grossly oversimplistic spouting from his polemic podium "deport illegals" makes him appear terribly uninformed, uneducated, and as simplistic as his mob appeal statements.

Apologies for the long post, but more often than not Trump supporters use a line or two that exemplifies the terribly oversimplistic Trump message that completely ignores the complexities and consequences of his proposed actions as if all such things can be reduced to the business KISS principle.

eire4 · 28-11-2015 10:36pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

So let me get this straight. You support a deportation of millions but with sufficient numbers being readmitted and quickly enough so as not to significantly affect your economy... in essence a revolving door? Out you go, no not too far, come back now.

With all due respect, surely the more prudent course of action is to secure your borders as soon as possible and then without a farcical merry go round of kicking people out just to bring them back, to deal sensibly and calmly with regularising the status of those currently present in the US?

In regards to Mexico net immigration is more or less zero and has been since 2012. The real issue is as you say to calmy and in a sensible way deal with the 11-12 million illegals currently in the country who do in fact play an important role in the economy.

Carcharodon · 29-11-2015 7:38pm

eire4 wrote: »

In regards to Mexico net immigration is more or less zero and has been since 2012. The real issue is as you say to calmy and in a sensible way deal with the 11-12 million illegals currently in the country who do in fact play an important role in the economy.

"a new Pew Research survey finds that net Mexican immigration to the United States has dropped, with more people returning to Mexico than coming to the United States since 2009. Researchers found that 1 million Mexican individuals and families, which included children born in the U.S., left between 2009 and 2014, while approximately 870,000 people crossed into the U.S. It's the largest net dip since mass migration to the U.S. began in the 1970s, according to the study. "

Jen Kirby

Its actually even going the opposite way and to deal with the current illegals in a sensible way will be near impossible with some of the buffoons in the republican party

PopePalpatine · 30-11-2015 2:20pm

Ahead of New Hampshire's primary election - the first in the country - the New Hampshire Union Leader has backed Chris Christie, who's currently 7th in the polls there. This is the same newspaper who backed John McCain in the 2008 Republican primaries, and helped boost his campaign.

Thargor · 30-11-2015 3:10pm

Amerika wrote: »

With the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level running about $115 billion, a 2 year payback on investment sounds like a really good deal for the taxpayer.

Black Swan wrote: »

If Trump wants to capture and deport all illegals (i.e., estimated 11 million), who is going to pay for this massive law enforcement, temporary containment, and transfer operation? Many of these illegals did not simply cross the southern border, and you cannot simply dump them through a door in the Trump Wall into Mexico. Rather an extraordinarily large number overstayed their visas and came from many countries around the world.

In addition to this, what about all the associated costs occurring from single and class action suits against these massive deportations filed by a host of lawyers, the ACLU, other special interest groups, and in the international courts filed by nations where Trump may be dumping millions of unemployed? And while these lawsuits are being adjudicated in the already overburdened court system, who is going to pay for increased temporary jail space, which in many states are overpopulated with prisoners today?

Furthermore, would Trump have to hire thousands of additional government professionals and workers to handle this massive glut on a system that currently is dysfunctional, so dysfunctional that the 11 million got in and stayed in the first place? Does this sound like BIGGER government, with a very simplistic mob appeal platform statement by Trump that ignores the complexities and massive costs to the taxpayer, with a very likely massive increase in the federal deficit as a result? Some may claim that this increase in government workers would only be temporary, but what then happens when Trump then dumps these government workers on the unemployment lists?

And what about the huge negative impact on international relations with Trump dumping millions of unemployed on other nations, many of which may be lesser developed countries that cannot handle significant additional numbers? Will there be Trump Refugee Camps? American is not a closed-system island that is self-contained behind its Trump Wall, and cannot ignore the international impacts of its actions, especially when we are talking 11 million people being dumped. And pointing to the illegals and their nations of origin simplistically proclaiming "shame on you, you entered illegally," or "overstayed your visas illegally" will not mitigate the adverse economic and social impacts of Trump dumping. Can anyone see the Al-Qaeda and ISIS recruiters setting up in Trump Refugee Camps wooing very unhappy, unemployed, and mad-at-US refugees to the cause?

Lastly, and not less significantly, what domestic economic impacts will be realised when Trump captures and removes 11 million consumers, most of whom are working for US businesses at very low payroll costs, and buying US business products and services? The US model of capitalism is a consumer growth model, and the loss of 11 million consumers and cheap workers could plunge the US economy into another recession; i.e. a Trump Recession.

The extraordinary complexities, financial, and international consequences unaddressed by Trump's grossly oversimplistic spouting from his polemic podium "deport illegals" makes him appear terribly uninformed, uneducated, and as simplistic as his mob appeal statements.

Apologies for the long post, but more often than not Trump supporters use a line or two that exemplifies the terribly oversimplistic Trump message that completely ignores the complexities and consequences of his proposed actions as if all such things can be reduced to the business KISS principle.

Hmmm, 2 years to pay off an investment in destroying millions of peoples lives before it starts yielding $115 billion in savings every year or everything Black Swan posted...

Who to believe, who to believe? hmmm...

Amerika · 30-11-2015 5:18pm

Black Swan wrote: »

The earlier question proposed (that you quoted Amerika) was what would happen if the GOP did not nominate Trump, even if he was still leading in the polls? The GOP does not have to nominate him, high polls or not; they are under no legal obligation to do so. These poll numbers are not votes in an official election. They could nominate one of the 2016 GOP presidential candidates currently in the single digits like Jeb Bush, or low teens like Cruz or Rubio, and dump Trump. What would happen then? Would the party split? Cross-over? Stay at home during election? Or would Trump go back on his promise not to run independent? What's your best guess today, as well as the best guesses of our other US Politics forum members?

Trump has signed a pledge to support the Republican Party’s nominee and not run as a Independent. It would look pretty bad if the GOP turned around and not nominate him if he gets the required votes. I believe Republicans would stay away from the voting booth if they didn’t nominate him... if he won. Yeah, the GOP will do as much as they can to stop Mr. Trump from being the nominee, but in the end GOP will nominate him, holding noses and hope for the best if he gets the primary votes, I believe.

Sure, much of the establishment GOP big time donors might not support him and throw their money at Clinton. They want a puppet that they can control and Trump will never be that person, but Hillary surely would be IMO.

Thargor · 30-11-2015 5:26pm

Have you abandoned your bizarre notion that his immigration policies are a good idea and will yield $115 billion in savings every year now Amerika?

Amerika · 30-11-2015 5:26pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

So let me get this straight. You support a deportation of millions but with sufficient numbers being readmitted and quickly enough so as not to significantly affect your economy... in essence a revolving door? Out you go, no not too far, come back now.

With all due respect, surely the more prudent course of action is to secure your borders as soon as possible and then without a farcical merry go round of kicking people out just to bring them back, to deal sensibly and calmly with regularising the status of those currently present in the US?

No, I support a guest worker program based on quantifiable economic needs of the country, not based on “you sneaked in illegally, but you still get the pot of gold at he end of the rainbow... And to hell with all the people who have been waiting years to come in legally. Go ahead of the line, pass GO, and collect all of our benefits.”

And no US birthright citizenship for guest workers.

But I do agree he need to secure our borders first, with a wall, along with kicking out illegals who have committed crimes here.

Amerika · 30-11-2015 6:10pm

Black Swan wrote: »

If Trump wants to capture and deport all illegals (i.e., estimated 11 million), who is going to pay for this massive law enforcement, temporary containment, and transfer operation? Many of these illegals did not simply cross the southern border, and you cannot simply dump them through a door in the Trump Wall into Mexico. Rather an extraordinarily large number overstayed their visas and came from many countries around the world.

In addition to this, what about all the associated costs occurring from single and class action suits against these massive deportations filed by a host of lawyers, the ACLU, other special interest groups, and in the international courts filed by nations where Trump may be dumping millions of unemployed? And while these lawsuits are being adjudicated in the already overburdened court system, who is going to pay for increased temporary jail space, which in many states are overpopulated with prisoners today?

Furthermore, would Trump have to hire thousands of additional government professionals and workers to handle this massive glut on a system that currently is dysfunctional, so dysfunctional that the 11 million got in and stayed in the first place? Does this sound like BIGGER government, with a very simplistic mob appeal platform statement by Trump that ignores the complexities and massive costs to the taxpayer, with a very likely massive increase in the federal deficit as a result? Some may claim that this increase in government workers would only be temporary, but what then happens when Trump then dumps these government workers on the unemployment lists?

And what about the huge negative impact on international relations with Trump dumping millions of unemployed on other nations, many of which may be lesser developed countries that cannot handle significant additional numbers? Will there be Trump Refugee Camps? American is not a closed-system island that is self-contained behind its Trump Wall, and cannot ignore the international impacts of its actions, especially when we are talking 11 million people being dumped. And pointing to the illegals and their nations of origin simplistically proclaiming "shame on you, you entered illegally," or "overstayed your visas illegally" will not mitigate the adverse economic and social impacts of Trump dumping. Can anyone see the Al-Qaeda and ISIS recruiters setting up in Trump Refugee Camps wooing very unhappy, unemployed, and mad-at-US refugees to the cause?

Lastly, and not less significantly, what domestic economic impacts will be realised when Trump captures and removes 11 million consumers, most of whom are working for US businesses at very low payroll costs, and buying US business products and services? The US model of capitalism is a consumer growth model, and the loss of 11 million consumers and cheap workers could plunge the US economy into another recession; i.e. a Trump Recession.

The extraordinary complexities, financial, and international consequences unaddressed by Trump's grossly oversimplistic spouting from his polemic podium "deport illegals" makes him appear terribly uninformed, uneducated, and as simplistic as his mob appeal statements.

Apologies for the long post, but more often than not Trump supporters use a line or two that exemplifies the terribly oversimplistic Trump message that completely ignores the complexities and consequences of his proposed actions as if all such things can be reduced to the business KISS principle.

We are a nation of laws and need to abide by the laws to survive. It depends on how the deportation would be administered. The true unemployment rate (U-6) ranges between 9.5% (BLS) and 13.8% (Gallup). Sounds like a deportation force is already there... ready and willing (shovel ready, so to speak). Build a wall and end birthright citizenship for those born to illegal immigrants would be the start. If these happened and a deportation force were to be implemented, what do you think would happen if it were announced anyone who self-deports by a certain time would automatically be considered for a guest worker program... And anyone who would need to be deported by the government would not qualify for reentry? I think a large portion of the illegal alien problem would take care of itself.

Here is Trump’s plans on Immigration Reform…
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

On a personal note, here is something to consider. My wife works for an electrical contracting firm. They are constantly losing bids from two companies that low-ball their bids because they utilize illegal immigrants on the workforce. My wife’s firm has reported these companies to law enforcement and immigration. But the government does nothing, choosing to turn a blind eye to the illegal practices. My wife’s company has had to lay off more than 50% of it’s workforce because of the situation, and it’s future operation does not look promising if this continues. This scenario is playing out everywhere. Please tell me how this is good for the country and how it is helping the economy?

And I find it humorous that we say Trumps deportation plans are prohibitively expensive, but we laud plans for the US giving billions of dollars per year to countries that make no binding commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the climate talks.

Amerika · 30-11-2015 6:39pm

Thargor wrote: »

Have you abandoned your bizarre notion that his immigration policies are a good idea and will yield $115 billion in savings every year now Amerika?

No. You haven't given me much more then high and mighty, feel-good, arguments on why we should put illegal aliens ahead of people legally waiting in line for the same thing these people are demanding from their illegal activities.

Overheal · 01-12-2015 1:35am

Ted Cruz must think any publicity is good publicity; speaking in relation to the recent attack inside a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/cruz-the-overwhelming-majority-of-violent-criminals-are-democrats/

Ted Cruz wrote:

“Here’s the simple and undeniable fact: the overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats. The media doesn’t report that.”

But there is more - he went so far as to contradict what the neighbors and ex-wife said of the Colorado shooter Robert Dear who is reported as a mentally unwell person that expressed right-wing views, had brushes with the law and exhibited strange behaviors. According to Ted Cruz - who knows best - Robert Dear is a transgender liberal and a registered Independent, so we can all stop trying to pin the violence on Dear's warped application of drive-by conservative ideas.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/ted-cruz-casually-offers-that-planned-parenthood-shooter-was-transgendered-leftist-activist/

Ted Cruz wrote:

“It’s also been reported that [Robert Dear] was registered as an independent and a woman and a transgendered leftist activist. If that’s what he is, I don’t think it’s fair to blame on the rhetoric on the left. This is a murderer.”

It has been my experience that candidates who make such unfounded statements do not fare all that well. I probably wouldn't waste your vote on him in the Primary..

Black Swan · 01-12-2015 3:59am

Amerika wrote: »

With the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level running about $115 billion, a 2 year payback on investment sounds like a really good deal for the taxpayer.

Before Trump $115 billion lost, and after Trump $0? Does this appear just a bit incomprehensible? And all done extraordinarily within 2 years? It's not realistic or practical, and it won't happen if Trump gets elected, even if some may think he can walk on water.

I am very skeptical about the so called (2 years later) $115 billion in savings every year, and would like to see rigorous, credible, and unbiased studies that support this claim that takes into account the multiplicity of financial impacts on the US domestic economy (and international competitiveness), not just something that comes from Trump's bombastic mob appeal mouth.

Thargor wrote: »

Hmmm, 2 years to pay off an investment in destroying millions of peoples lives before it starts yielding $115 billion in savings every year or everything Black Swan posted...

Who to believe, who to believe? hmmm...

Trump's extraordinarily oversimplistic plan to capture 11 million illegals in the US would require massive resources, including a huge increase in law enforcement, courts, jails, and deportation personnel; i.e., BIGGER GOVERNMENT. These illegals in hiding will not simply raise their 11 million hands when Trump calls, and will have to be detected, apprehended, jailed, adjudicated, and transported to their many countries of origin around the world. And to do this massive capture operation, along with necessary short-cuts in adjudication of 11 million illegals during an incredibly short 2 years with currently overburdened US courts would require the US to turn into a POLICE STATE.

Can anyone imagine the violations of privacy and due process that may occur to law abiding US citizens and businesses while Trump does his massive police sweep of all 50 states and territories, snooping into every nook and cranny in an attempt to find 11 million hiding illegals? POLICE STATE?

What kind of employee will be hired to conduct Trump's massive 11 million illegal deportation programme, knowing that Trump will dump most of them after 2 years on the unemployment lists? Will these be highly qualified, fully trained and intelligent law enforcement professionals of the type that would not violate law abiding citizen or business rights, OR unqualified or underqualified suspect persons quickly hired and poorly trained that might not want to give up their POLICE STATE powers and occupation after 2 years to stand in unemployment lines?

Alternatively, would such employees be eligible to file and vote for union membership well within that two years, and has Trump thought in the slightest that there might be collective roadblocks to dumping them in mass after 2 years when potentially faced with experienced collective bargaining agents from established unions, as well as associated class action law suits which may drag out for years, perhaps all the way to the US Supreme Court? Of course Trump was used to simplistically saying "You're fired!" on his Celebrity Apprentice show, and expects thousands of employees to tuck their tails and walk off.

What about the millions of underage children born to these millions of illegals? Does the oversimplistic Trump plan address these issues comprehensively or parrot the "law is the law," or does he just SHOUT to the mob "deport illegals" from his polemic podium? These children were born in the US (unlike Canadian born presidential candidate Ted Cruz), and many of these children will have both US and illegal parents; i.e., illegals just don't always marry illegals. Will Trump tear these families apart, with single-parent wage earner consequences (many then drawing on social service tax dollars to survive) while deporting the one illegal parent, or will Trump deport the US born children of 2 illegal parents (e.g., simply calling them with his disdainful smugness "anchor babies" as if they were depersonalised collateral damage in war)?

The associated Trump Wall that he claims Mexico will pay for is just complete and total silliness. He cannot force Mexico to pay for it, and how is it in Mexico's best interests to do so? If they tell Trump to go jump in the Gulf, what will Trump do, try to repeal NAFTA, or try to treat Mexico like Cuba or Iran? What a farce! And besides, wouldn't the Trump Wall have to surround the entire US, and be above 40,000 feet, given that millions fly into the US, now on expired visas? All joking aside, I cannot imagine how any intelligent person who examines his extraordinarily oversimplistic Trump Dump deport illegals plan as voting for him, along with all the other terribly oversimplistic and superficial plans shouted from his polemic podium, many laced with uninformed, uneducated bigotry.

lochderg · 01-12-2015 11:48am

Overheal wrote: »

Ted Cruz must think any publicity is good publicity; speaking in relation to the recent attack inside a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/cruz-the-overwhelming-majority-of-violent-criminals-are-democrats/

But there is more - he went so far as to contradict what the neighbors and ex-wife said of the Colorado shooter Robert Dear who is reported as a mentally unwell person that expressed right-wing views, had brushes with the law and exhibited strange behaviors. According to Ted Cruz - who knows best - Robert Dear is a transgender liberal and a registered Independent, so we can all stop trying to pin the violence on Dear's warped application of drive-by conservative ideas.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/ted-cruz-casually-offers-that-planned-parenthood-shooter-was-transgendered-leftist-activist/

It has been my experience that candidates who make such unfounded statements do not fare all that well. I probably wouldn't waste your vote on him in the Primary..

Ted Cruz,like Al Qaeda,White Supremacists.Neocons,Unionists,Christian Fundamentalists etc is living breathing evidence of 'when good men do nothing'

Paleface · 01-12-2015 1:40pm

Amerika wrote: »

We are a nation of laws and need to abide by the laws to survive. It depends on how the deportation would be administered. The true unemployment rate (U-6) ranges between 9.5% (BLS) and 13.8% (Gallup). Sounds like a deportation force is already there... ready and willing (shovel ready, so to speak). Build a wall and end birthright citizenship for those born to illegal immigrants would be the start. If these happened and a deportation force were to be implemented, what do you think would happen if it were announced anyone who self-deports by a certain time would automatically be considered for a guest worker program... And anyone who would need to be deported by the government would not qualify for reentry? I think a large portion of the illegal alien problem would take care of itself.

A lot of what you've said here deluded and impractical.

You can't force people into a job that they might not have any interest in performing. A lot of people are unemployed for genuine reasons. They aren't sitting around waiting for a job of this nature to fall into their lap.

Also the fact that you think people will volunteer to leave the US on the promise that they will be readmitted is also folly. Where will they go in the mean time and at who's expense? Will their current employers agree to this and will their jobs be waiting for them when they return?

The Randy Riverbeast · 01-12-2015 1:46pm

Dont a lot of illegals get in through a method other than walking from Mexico?

I'm no civil engineer or presidential candidate so I might not be familiar with how physics works in these situations but how exactly will a wall reduce people entering from any other method? It wont pay for itself after 2 years, plus you'll have to pay for maintenance, staff etc which will continue to be required for longer than 2 years.

Amerika · 01-12-2015 3:01pm

Paleface wrote: »

A lot of what you've said here deluded and impractical.

You can't force people into a job that they might not have any interest in performing. A lot of people are unemployed for genuine reasons. They aren't sitting around waiting for a job of this nature to fall into their lap.

Also the fact that you think people will volunteer to leave the US on the promise that they will be readmitted is also folly. Where will they go in the mean time and at who's expense? Will their current employers agree to this and will their jobs be waiting for them when they return?

Perhaps if it was already in place, our small community school district, with a population of 15,000 – comprising of a large percentage of elderly on fixed incomes, wouldn’t have had to build a new middle school at a cost of $4 million to the taxpayers, and are looking to have to build a high school because of the influx of Spanish speaking children born to illegal aliens. Add to that we have to staff 2 teachers for many classes (one English speaking, one Spanish speaking). A very high price that small community must pay for the government turning a blind eye to illegal activities. We're looking for donations to help defray the costs... All the high and mighty, bleeding hearts, here should PM me on where to send donations in order to put their money where their mouths are. :rolleyes:

“With ObamaCare we will reduce your insurance premiums by $2,500, per family per year,” and “ObamaCare won’t cost the government one single dime,” and it “Won't Add One Dime To The Deficit.” All untrue yet we pass ObamaCare. I guess all those who oppose Trump’s deportation of illegal aliens based on their thoughts of a cost/benefit analysis, also argued against the passing of ObamaCare... NOT!

"Operation Wetback" was successful under President Eisenhower. I don’t see why another, and even tougher, deportation operation wouldn’t either. And the workforce jobs for the operation will easily be filled, of that have no doubt.

And “where will they go in the mean time and at who's expense?” They will go to the countries they are citizens of. They are not US citizens. And if their countries refuse to take them back, economic sanctions should be enacted.

“Will their current employers agree to this and will their jobs be waiting for them when they return?” No, that's the point. If their jobs can be filled by US citizens, all the better. Only jobs needing a guest worker would be open to them.

Amerika · 01-12-2015 3:04pm

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Dont a lot of illegals get in through a method other than walking from Mexico?

I'm no civil engineer or presidential candidate so I might not be familiar with how physics works in these situations but how exactly will a wall reduce people entering from any other method? It wont pay for itself after 2 years, plus you'll have to pay for maintenance, staff etc which will continue to be required for longer than 2 years.

The southern border is the primary way for illegals entering the country. The other big problem are people overstaying their visas. That problem would require better tracking of visas. And yes, maintenance and staff will be required for a border fence, but it will pay for itself... That is the point.

Permabear · 01-12-2015 3:06pm

This post has been deleted.

Amerika · 01-12-2015 3:08pm

lochderg wrote: »

Ted Cruz,like Al Qaeda,White Supremacists.Neocons,Unionists,Christian Fundamentalists etc is living breathing evidence of 'when good men do nothing'

Are you equating Ted Cruz and Neocons to Al Qaeda? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Amerika · 01-12-2015 3:09pm

Overheal wrote: »

Originally Posted by Ted Cruz
“Here’s the simple and undeniable fact: the overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats. The media doesn’t report that.”

Is it true?

Lockstep · 01-12-2015 3:21pm

lochderg wrote: »

Ted Cruz,like Al Qaeda,White Supremacists.Neocons,Unionists,Christian Fundamentalists etc is living breathing evidence of 'when good men do nothing'

Ted Cruz is hardly equivalent to Al Qaeda. Don't resort to such silly tactics.

The Randy Riverbeast · 01-12-2015 3:54pm

Amerika wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So the plan is to send some illegals back to mexico, build a great big wall paid for by Mexico and then allow Mexicans to get guest worker visas who will then just go back home afterwards because...reasons. I'm sure it would reduce illegal immigration, by how much and whether it would be worth it is the other question.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, not leave them alone. If caught they should be sent back. Building a wall that another country is paying for is a stupid idea though. There comes a point where it costs more to reduce illegal immigration than it costs for them to be there.

Amerika · 01-12-2015 4:12pm

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

So the plan is to send some illegals back to mexico, build a great big wall paid for by Mexico and then allow Mexicans to get guest worker visas who will then just go back home afterwards because...reasons. I'm sure it would reduce illegal immigration, by how much and whether it would be worth it is the other question.

No, not leave them alone. If caught they should be sent back. Building a wall that another country is paying for is a stupid idea though. There comes a point where it costs more to reduce illegal immigration than it costs for them to be there.

The problem is when they are caught, nothing happens. It will take someone with some level of Trump's thinking on illegal immigration to actually make a difference beneficial and cost effective to US citizens.

And having Mexico pay for the wall is not so stupid, IMO. Here is how Trump plans on making Mexico pay for the border fence…

Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore.

I appears Trump is willing to start a trade war and create diplomatic struggles with Mexico, until it funds a fence. I guess the primary question is who will lose more in trade war... the US or Mexico? I believe Mexico loses on that front.

The Randy Riverbeast · 01-12-2015 4:48pm

Amerika wrote: »

The problem is when they are caught, nothing happens. It will take someone with some level of Trump's thinking on illegal immigration to actually make a difference beneficial and cost effective to US citizens.

If you think that all illegals are Mexicans who just walked over the border in the middle of the night then sure, which I suppose is Trump's target audience.

Amerika wrote: »

And having Mexico pay for the wall is not so stupid, IMO. Here is how Trump plans on making Mexico pay for the border fence…

Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore.

I appears Trump is willing to start a trade war and create diplomatic struggles with Mexico, until it funds a fence. I guess the primary question is who will lose more in trade war... the US or Mexico? I believe Mexico loses on that front.

Mexico loses and Mexicans then emigrate. I wonder where they would go?

In the end, he is a republican so no matter what magical properties this wall grown from magic beans has, you will agree with it.

Amerika · 01-12-2015 5:16pm

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

If you think that all illegals are Mexicans who just walked over the border in the middle of the night then sure, which I suppose is Trump's target audience.

Mexico loses and Mexicans then emigrate. I wonder where they would go?

If there was a border wall, I guess they would have to go south.

In the end, he is a republican so no matter what magical properties this wall grown from magic beans has, you will agree with it.

Well, republican thinking is better than democratic thinking... that is a given.

But I do need to make a disclaimer... I voted for two democrats in the November election, albeit they were local politicians.

But Trump is not my first choice in the GOP primary. But if it comes down to the general election... and it’s Trump vs Clinton, then yes, I will be voting for Trump.

Amerika · 01-12-2015 7:33pm

I wonder why anything isn’t being made of, or talked about, FBI Director James Comey. He could be a game changer in the 2016 presidential race. He is responsible for the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as Secretary of State. Comey served in George W. Bush’s Justice Department, and was later appointed to head up the FBI by President Obama. He enjoys a stellar reputation from both sides of the political aisle because of his nonpartisan approach and guidance to the rule of law. What happens if he brings criminal charges against Hillary Clinton? She could face a misdemeanor for keeping classified secrets on a home server that was not secured by the government. Or more serious charges for conspiracy to “conceal documents from government computers,” which carries a penalty of three years in jail per document, and a conviction would disqualify her from holding public office. If she escapes criminal charges because she’s too big to jail but some of her aides don’t... will it look to voters like just another government cover-up perpetrated by a “party first” administration? What does the democratic party do if it doesn’t go down well for Clinton... Hope for the best, go with Sanders or O’Malley, or bring in Biden riding a white horse to the rescue?

Overheal · 01-12-2015 7:55pm

Biden will not run. That's a dead horse you're flogging.

Amerika · 01-12-2015 7:58pm

Overheal wrote: »

Biden will not run. That's a dead horse you're flogging.

I agree he won't "run," but I do think he would relish the idea of being the white knight and riding to the rescue.

eire4 · 01-12-2015 8:00pm

Overheal wrote: »

Biden will not run. That's a dead horse you're flogging.

Would agree there. It is clear that Biden is not running at this point. The Democratic nomination will go to Clinton, Sanders or O'Malley. Most likely to Clinton although Sanders has certainly surpassed many peoples expectations thus far. O'Malley has performed well but just doesn't seem to have been able to get any traction. I do wonder though could O'Malley maybe end up as the VP nominee for the Democrats.

Thargor · 01-12-2015 9:37pm

Which of her aides do you see going to prison and for what exactly?

Overheal · 01-12-2015 10:58pm

Amerika wrote: »

I agree he won't "run," but I do think he would relish the idea of being the white knight and riding to the rescue.

And what's the President precedent for that? In what general election has the election been swept by a late addition to the race? What late additions to a race, in general, would you be referring to with this "White Knight" thing?

Black Swan · 02-12-2015 5:05am

eire4 wrote: »

The Democratic nomination will go to Clinton, Sanders or O'Malley. Most likely to Clinton although Sanders has certainly surpassed many peoples expectations thus far. O'Malley has performed well but just doesn't seem to have been able to get any traction. I do wonder though could O'Malley maybe end up as the VP nominee for the Democrats.

If Clinton gets the nomination, who will be her running mate as Vice President? One of the remaining two, or someone else that may pull a major EC state, or swing state, or represent a large minority voter segment (e.g., Hispanic)? This may be a game breaker for Clinton in terms of November 2016.

Amerika · 02-12-2015 2:17pm

Overheal wrote: »

And what's the President precedent for that? In what general election has the election been swept by a late addition to the race? What late additions to a race, in general, would you be referring to with this "White Knight" thing?

Off the top of my head I don’t know if it has happened in a presidential election, although that doesn’t say it hasn’t.

But I recall in 2002 it happening in a US Senate race. The Democrat candidate Robert Torricelli had won the Democratic nomination for a second term in the June primary election, and was expected to defeat the Republican nominee Doug Forrester in the general election. But a probe into his donation activities resulted in Torricelli being indicted on federal corruption charges. With news of the charges caused his poll numbers to drop dramatically and Forrester was expected to then win the general election. Democrats forced him off the ballot late in the election process, and a beloved retired Senator, Raleigh Lautenberg (the white knight riding in to save the day), was thrown into the election by Democrats, but too late in the game to be but on the ballot... as it would be against election law. Republicans filed charges and the New Jersey Supreme Court completely ignored the law and allowed Lautenberg’s name be put on the ballots (it was New Jersey though, where laws don’t often seem to matter much when they hurt Democrats). Lautenberg, the white knight, won the general election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/03/nyregion/new-jersey-senate-race-overview-new-jersey-court-lets-lautenberg-into-senate.html

Amerika · 02-12-2015 2:34pm

Thargor wrote: »

Which of her aides do you see going to prison and for what exactly?

The most obvious charges would be for braking federal rules and/or laws, and mishandling of classified and top secret information. Off the top of my head I’d say the FBI would be investigating Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, Timmy Davis and Philippe Reines. But if I had to put my money on one aide taking the rap and falling on their sword to protect Hillary Clinton, it would be Bryan Pagliano. He was an IT staff member who worked for the State Department, and was personally paid by Clinton to help maintain her personal email server. Pagliano invoked his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions that could incriminate him at the House Select Committee on Benghazi. I figure he’s not any great asset to the Clinton campaign, and expendable. (Although Abedin has her own possible legal problems for potentially breaking other laws regarding government employment, which are over and above the Clinton email scandal).

Amerika · 02-12-2015 3:52pm

Black Swan wrote: »

If Clinton gets the nomination, who will be her running mate as Vice President? One of the remaining two, or someone else that may pull a major EC state, or swing state, or represent a large minority voter segment (e.g., Hispanic)? This may be a game breaker for Clinton in terms of November 2016.

This early in the race I’d put my money on Julian Castro, followed by Tim Kaine and Martin Heinrich. If she thinks it will be a close general election, I could also see her picking Michael Bloomberg to try and lure some Republicans voters over to the Dark Side.

eire4 · 02-12-2015 6:09pm

Black Swan wrote: »

If Clinton gets the nomination, who will be her running mate as Vice President? One of the remaining two, or someone else that may pull a major EC state, or swing state, or represent a large minority voter segment (e.g., Hispanic)? This may be a game breaker for Clinton in terms of November 2016.

Clinton being the first female condidate who has a very real chance of being president and her current popularity with most minority groups mean that having a minority running mate is probably not essential for her. Having a running mate from a toss up state is a very real possibility. As is picking Martin O'Malley who I must say has impressed me quite a bit over the last couple of months. I just do not see here picking her main rival for the Democratic nomination in Bernie Saunders though. Just my gut beliefs on who she would pick if she wins the Democratic nomination.

Black Swan · 03-12-2015 4:33am

eire4 wrote: »

Clinton being the first female condidate who has a very real chance of being president and her current popularity with most minority groups mean that having a minority running mate is probably not essential for her.

What if the GOP does not pick Trump or Carson (or some other non-Hispanic candidate), rather they nominate Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, would Clinton then consider an Hispanic running mate as VP to ensure keeping the large minority voting block?

InTheTrees · 03-12-2015 4:58am

Black Swan wrote: »

What if the GOP does not pick Trump or Carson (or some other non-Hispanic candidate), rather they nominate Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio

There's a lot of rumours circulating about rubio that he's fathered two children with women who were not his wife. Apparently hes been spending big bucks keeping the stories under wraps.

Possibly just malicious rumours. Google "rubio love child" and you'll see the stories.

2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Comments