2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

RobertKK wrote: »

Islam will not be banned in the US.

I guess you find Europe fascist given the deal the EU made with Turkey.

The EU allowed in many terrorists in 2015 with uncontrolled immigration from countries with phenomenal terrorist problems.

We have to see what Trump actually does. There are many good reasons for severe restrictions on immigration from countries with such a huge terrorist problem.
Strangely the countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar who fund so much of the terrorism have not been leading in taking in immigrants.

You never addressed a company telling it's employees to resign if they voted for Trump.

Jawgap wrote: »

oh right......we should take his anti-Trump words literally, but we should interpret Trump's words figuratively......?

......glad that's been sorted out.

rob316 wrote: »

The amount of people I have heard discussing Trump who can't understand the difference between Nationalism and Fascism is frightening.

Billy86 wrote: »

As one of the more active Trump supporters (or in your case, anti-Clinton advocates I guess is more accurate! ), thanks for giving a fairly detailed and direct answer. I waited for the reply to see if any other Trump fans knew what they wanted from him as president, I'll post that again in a few hours in case some missed it as unless I missed any, you were the only one to do so.



My issue with the illegal immigrants idea is less to do with the humanitarian aspect which will always be divisive, but more of a pragmatic one - a lot of these people work in skilled roles, and so like-for-like replacement is not going to be a realistic option quite regularly. Furthermore, while I understand the issue regarding how illegal immigrants impact wages, getting rid of them all ASAP rather than over a longer period of time present a big problem, as companies then have to pay their staff substantially more or so bust, which can have a knock of effect. Take construction for example, known to have a larger level of illegals than both - if a company is in the process of doing a renovation job/extension/etc let's say to a restaurant, but all of a sudden lose a chunk of their workforce (illegals), they either go bust or have to pay new (legal) staff significantly more. Now 'fair enough, tough on them' you might say - but the issue then becomes what happens in either scenario?

In the first where they go bust, their legal workforce are also left out of a job which means where you had let's say 15 members of staff plus the owner, 11 of whom were legal and 4 illegal, you lose anywhere from 12-16 sources of income tax (many illegals do pay taxes) and replace it with 12 people on welfare, which is clearly a large net loss when multiplied out across the country.

In the second instance where they replace their illegal staff with legal staff, they then either go bust anyway or have to significantly increase the cost of their services in order to stay afloat. Before getting into the issue of how affordable (or unaffordable) this becomes for those needing construction jobs done, it also creates the issue... what about the cafe/restaurant? They're left with a half complete job that they cannot afford to have finished, which is a major problem for a business that could threaten the jobs of all the people working their also if they cannot afford to pay the increased amount. On top of that, service industries like that also have a high number of illegals, so if they had a few they would also need to replace them all with legal staff, thus making it harder again for them to keep afloat before even factoring that in. Either the construction company or the restaurant going bust is very likely to cause the other to do so as well, doubling the impact of creating a dangerous domino effect. Either way, they are very likely going to need to pass this increased cost on to the customer which leads to a lot of complaints about the cost of living compared to wages and so on.

I don't necessarily mind someone saying to get rid of 10.9mn illegal immigrants (8.3mn in work from what I have read), so much as I think looking to do so in the space of four years or less is a very dangerous proposition in my opinion, economically speaking. The quite likely end result of this is getting rid of around 8.3mn illegals, and putting many more millions of jobs (on top of those 8.3mn) in very serious jeopardy in order to do so. A net loss of jobs like that in such a short time would be incredibly economically crippling.