2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

jobbridge4life · 26-11-2015 5:19pm

Walter Bishop wrote: »

Trump back in the news for mocking a disabled reporter. How is this buffoon still leading the GOP race?

Because a not insignificant proportion of the GOP support base are low-information, low-education low lifes.

20Cent · 26-11-2015 5:26pm

Trump now claiming "thousands and thousands" of Arabs were cheering watching the twin towers fall in New Jersey.
Jokes over GOP time to get a serious nominee.

ECO_Mental · 26-11-2015 5:45pm

Amerika wrote: »

We’re having a baked ham, two deep fried turkeys (one regular and one injected with hot sauce),!

On serious note, how big is your deep fat frier??? And do you inject the hot sauce before or after you fry the turkey....

K-9 · 26-11-2015 7:02pm

Mod:

Can we keep the Turkey talk to pm or the cooking forum, thanks. Well, unless you want to discuss a different Turkey, as in the state bordering Syria and candidate reaction to that!

ancapailldorcha · 27-11-2015 1:35pm

K-9 wrote: »

Mod:

Can we keep the Turkey talk to pm or the cooking forum, thanks. Well, unless you want to discuss a different Turkey, as in the state bordering Syria and candidate reaction to that!

Evidently, this needs reiterating. I've just deleted some below standard posts. Back on topic please.

Black Swan · 27-11-2015 2:04pm

Just because a Republican candidate like Trump leads in the polls does not mean that the GOP will nominate him for president. If he continues to poll lead and does not get the GOP nomination, what happens to the Republican chances to win president November 2016?

Amerika · 27-11-2015 3:40pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Just because a Republican candidate like Trump leads in the polls does not mean that the GOP will nominate him for president. If he continues to poll lead and does not get the GOP nomination, what happens to the Republican chances to win president November 2016?

Why can’t Trump become POTUS? I think it is a very real possibility with Hillary Clinton’s problems mounting. And what would happen because of it? For one, the government is now too big to be trumped. In the general election, Republicans would vote for him and Democrats would not. That leaves the Independents. What you see in Trump is what you get, and that is appealing to a large portion of the electorate. He is a good negotiator and has a confident and dynamic personality... which works well in politics. He also supports free enterprise and favors less regulation of the market, which would play well with a lot of Independents IMO. And in an article back in September in Business Insider, it was reported Trump had a favorability split at 41-54 among independents, while Clinton's sit at 39-59. So it could very well happen.

And FYI… Thanksgiving, turkey discussions, and politics goes hand-in-hand in the US. US presidents even make the news with presidential turkey pardons [2 TOTUS (Turkeys Of The United States), named Honest and Abe, were given pardons by President Obama last week]. Mike Huckabee, GOP presidential candidate, likes his turkeys deep fried.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/26/politics/thanksgiving-wishes-candidates-congress/

jobbridge4life · 27-11-2015 3:47pm

Amerika wrote: »

Why can’t Trump become POTUS? I think it is a very real possibility with Hillary Clinton’s problems mounting. And what would happen because of it? For one, the government is now too big to be trumped. In the general election, Republicans would vote for him and Democrats would not. That leaves the Independents. What you see in Trump is what you get, and that is appealing to a large portion of the electorate. He is a good negotiator and has a confident and dynamic personality... which works well in politics. He also supports free enterprise and favors less regulation of the market, which would play well with a lot of Independents IMO. And in an article back in September in Business Insider, it was reported Trump had a favorability split at 41-54 among independents, while Clinton's sit at 39-59. So it could very well happen.

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.

Amerika · 27-11-2015 3:59pm

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.

Besides “OMG, IT’S DONALD TRUMP,” what actually do you see as the downside(s) to a Trump presidency?

Personally, one downside I see would be that I believe Trump would side with Democratic party principles over Republican principles, too often.

jobbridge4life · 27-11-2015 4:07pm

Amerika wrote: »

Besides “OMG, IT’S DONALD TRUMP,” what actually do you see as the downside(s) to a Trump presidency?

Personally, one downside I see would be that I believe Trump would side with Democratic party principles over Republican principles, too often.

Condescend all you wish besides the fact that he is nominally a Republican what on Earth makes him suitable to be President? Downsides? Virtually everything he proposes and his timbre. I mean I'd make a list but honestly...

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.

2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Comments