Right-wing populism.

[hollodero]

(09-23-2016, 11:39 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Wouldn't happen.  He'd never get any of his craziness through Congress.

Maybe so. I didn't really ask if it would happen, I wanted to know if he'd be in favour of it happening. E.g. for cutting down the power of Congress for they are "just blocking what needs to be done".

When Congress stops him (and from the outside I'm not 100% sure, because the GOP got pretty much neutered at this point, and as far as I know they do have the majority), probably not few of the Trump supporters might be in favour of drastically reducing its influence. And with Trump, I believe some unthinkable things would no longer be unthinkable. I really do. But again, that was not my initial point.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-22-2016, 08:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is a total lie.

There is not one shred of evidence to back this up, and if you really believe it then you have been completely brainwashed.

There is no need to even has a discussion with someone who is so disconnected from reality.

Dang, good thing I got my info from reputable websites such as PBS.org, USA Today, The Guardian and CBS News, cause you know if they say it, it has to be true.

(09-22-2016, 08:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Hillary never said anything about "two innocent black men" being shot.  

You are just a gullible rube who believes everything the right wing echo chamber feeds you.

You should be a poster child for Trump supporters.

Yes she did, she called them both unarmed black men. This is another term for innocent black men.  
She's straight up Lying again, because we know the one in NC did have a gun.

And some more of your favorite websites.
MSNBC Praised Hillary for siding with the NC Rioters.

I see you ignored my question about leaving your doors unlocked.

(09-22-2016, 09:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't want to ruin this with any real numbers...but:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-22/immigration-reality-looks-nothing-like-trump-rhetoric

Trump didn't give any numbers, so why are you trying to dispute a general statement?

I see you ignored my question about leaving your doors unlocked.

(09-22-2016, 10:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It doesn't give any edge. He's a political insider, a part of the establishment. Just because you want to give him an edge because of it does not make it objectively so.

I'm aware of that, but many people don't see him that way.

I see you ignored my question about leaving your doors unlocked.

[hollodero]

(09-23-2016, 01:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Trump didn't give any numbers, so why are you trying to dispute a general statement?

And you don't see a problem there?
One side gives numbers, the other side don't. Who do you trust?

("Neither" would be ok for me, too)

[GMDino]

(09-23-2016, 01:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Trump didn't give any numbers, so why are you trying to dispute a general statement?

I see you ignored my question about leaving your doors unlocked.

He never gives specifics...when he does he's shown to wrong and then claims everyone is out to get him or its all rigged.  He just tries to rile up fear and hate in people.  And he's pretty good at it.

However I didn't know I had to answer the question:  My doors are locked when we go to sleep at night.  Sometimes during the day, sometimes not.  Depends on who is home and what is going on.

I guess there was a point to the question?

[Mike M (the other one)]

So you admit that you don't care what the left is doing even though they are also causing a racial divide in the US?
Trump might be blunt, but his edges can be smoothed out and he is trying more than Hillary is to be fair to all. In case you haven't noticed. Trump has been stealing the Black vote and the Hispanic votes from Hillary left and right. If he's such a racist full of hate speech, then why are they flocking towards him?

Of course I want it to remain a Democracy, but we need a way to get laws passed quicker and we also need to not allow riders onto some of these proposed bills which in turn gets them voted down.

Are you not reading my posts? I've already shown a way to get the money needed to build the wall in a year or less and have a steady stream to pay for upkeep with extra that can be diverted to other places, such as infrastructure etc.
message #28

*sighs Islamic immigration is not a problem yet. Why do we have to wait for it to be a problem before doing something about it? I don't want to see what's happening in France and Europe happening here. We already have enough problems with Cartels from the Border, we don't need more from that direction.

I'm sorry, what were you saying about Islamic immigration thru Mexico?
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/06/muslim-captured-coming-over-southern-u-s-border-had-ties-to-Taliban
SOB.

Shovels? There's a technology that will detect tunnels. Ladders? just how short do you think the wall is going to be?
Boats? how is a boat going to go thru, over or under a wall? Maybe you're talking where the coast is? IF we have the wall up, less resources will be needed guarding the walls so we can concentrate more on other areas. *sighs, Never said they couldn't solve it, but it is a big deterrent. They could go thru Canada, but first they have to get into Canada. And improved vetting here in the US.

Use Drones to find the boats, dispatch agents to intercept. I know the wall is not the end all be all, but it will be a huge deterrent.

Attacking innocents in a Mall or in NYC or anywhere else in the US on a fairly consistent basis is not going to make us afraid or full of fear?

The Wall would provide a security blanket, which would make us feel more secure. That wall is not going to cost a nation's fortune to build.


Unrestricted Jus Soli exists in about 32 countries now. Of those countries, almost everyone of them is in either North or South America.
Birth in Austria does not automatically mean the child is a citizen, unless at least one of the parents is an Austrian Citizen. Being born there can help speed up the process to get the infant granted citizenship.

Why are they locked? Because you don't want uninvited coming in?

That's not what he meant about Hillary, the NRA has a big arm in Politics and could out muscle her.

Just talk talk, I've already said he would lose votes if he killed someone. Hillary thinks she can say what ever she wants about black people and that they will continue to vote for her. Not much difference there, and she's losing votes. People are smarter than you and Trump want to give them credit for.

What? I didn't refuse to acknowledge he actually said it? I said it's just bs coming from him. You are the one that seems to be stuck on that point.

Oh ffs, are you that dense to think that Immigration is the only reason I'm voting for him over Hillary?


Immigration/Wall is the MAIN topic that YOU keep bringing up. I am on Hillary's side on a few things, but unfortunately for her, they are not high enough priorities to me.

Yes they are, they let it grow. They are playing a dangerous game over there in the Middle East by trying to support the Syrian Rebels whom some are playing the double agent game with us to get what they want/need (guns/money), then stabbing us in the back.


Oh so now you know what my expectations of a Trump Presidency are? I don't recall sharing any of that with the MB's. What I want to happen and what I expect will happen are not one and the same.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-23-2016, 01:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: And you don't see a problem there?
One side gives numbers, the other side don't. Who do you trust?

("Neither" would be ok for me, too)

Because the numbers in this area are very grey.
The cartels alone do a lot of the damage. People who are here illegally are not going to run to the cops when a crime has been committed against them for fear of being deported themselves. So factor that in and the numbers are stronger that the actual reported numbers that GMDino is reporting. Get it now? It's an impossible number to truly calculate.

(09-23-2016, 02:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: He never gives specifics...when he does he's shown to wrong and then claims everyone is out to get him or its all rigged.  He just tries to rile up fear and hate in people.  And he's pretty good at it.

However I didn't know I had to answer the question:  My doors are locked when we go to sleep at night.  Sometimes during the day, sometimes not.  Depends on who is home and what is going on.

I guess there was a point to the question?

We can play a numbers game all day long.
Would you like for me to show you how much Illegals costs us a year in anchor babies to school? (hint, more than building a wall would cost).

[GMDino]

(09-23-2016, 03:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So you admit that you don't care what the left is doing even though they are also causing a racial divide in the US?
Trump might be blunt, but his edges can be smoothed out and he is trying more than Hillary is to be fair to all. In case you haven't noticed. Trump has been stealing the Black vote and the Hispanic votes from Hillary left and right. If he's such a racist full of hate speech, then why are they flocking towards him?

Okay...stop.

Quote:A few days ago, Donald Trump's support among African American voters in the USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Daybreak tracking poll of the election appeared to shoot upward.


Since early summer, when the poll started, Trump's support among black voters had been in the low single digits in the poll, as it is in most surveys. Suddenly, he seemed to be nearing 20%.

Some of Trump's supporters cheered and began developing theories for why their candidate had finally started breaking through to black audiences. Outraged liberal critics of the poll denounced it anew.

And then, just as quickly as the line on the chart had turned upward, it turned back down. As of Wednesday, Trump's black support in the poll is back to the single digits, near where it had been all along.

Detailed results from the USC Dornsife/LAT daily tracking poll >>

What happened is an object lesson in how not to read polls, particularly a daily tracking poll such as the Daybreak survey. 

All polls are subject to random statistical noise. Tracking polls, because they take a sample every day, are particularly likely to jump around for no reason other than chance. That's especially true with a small sub-group like African Americans, who make up about one-eighth of the electorate.

The change in Trump's support was always well within the poll's margin of error for black voters, meaning there was a good likelihood that what appeared to be a shift was just random. Now that the level of support has returned to where it was, that seems likely to have been what happened.

The lesson for poll watchers: Be wary of short-term fluctuations, particularly those involving subgroups. Take margins of error seriously. And don't leap to conclusions until the evidence is solid.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/08/14/poll-only-1-percent-african-americans-support-donald-trump



I get it.  You don't care what he does because he will "change" once he holds the most powerful seat in the land.

I knew a lot of girls who dated guys who they just knew were going to change once they were married. 

But no one is "flocking" to Trump.  Just stop.

I can't even get to the rest after that one. 

[GMDino]

(09-23-2016, 03:32 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Because the numbers in this area are very grey.
The cartels alone do a lot of the damage. People who are here illegally are not going to run to the cops when a crime has been committed against them for fear of being deported themselves. So factor that in and the numbers are stronger that the actual reported numbers that GMDino is reporting. Get it now? It's an impossible number to truly calculate.


We can play a numbers game all day long.
Would you like for me to show you how much Illegals costs us a year in anchor babies to school? (hint, more than building a wall would cost).

Sure.  Show me the numbers.  And while you are at it how spending money on a wall (I can't believe you really think he can do that) will "save" us money.

[hollodero]

Your post is quite a mess :) so I only can answer parts where I'm pretty sure what they refer to.

(09-23-2016, 03:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Are you not reading my posts? I've already shown a way to get the money needed to build the wall in a year or less and have a steady stream to pay for upkeep with extra that can be diverted to other places, such as infrastructure etc.

Well, the first thing you said was Trump will find a way. I guess he said "believe me", and of course you do. What is there not to believe.
So what is the way. Taxing outgoing money to Mexico, I hear.
Now keep thinking. I'm in no way an expert here, but allow me.
The money is not transferred and then just lies on Mexico's bank account, for starters.
First, you can tax the "private" transfers, money sent to Mexico directly. By Mexicans working in the US sending it to their families. Now if that is taxed, the Mexican probably would start sending actual products instead of money. If you want to tax that, you have to tax all exported goods to Mexico. Which might mean there is little to no export to Mexico anymore.
Now you can tax the money the US spends to buy Mexican stuff.
Does that sound good?
It might not be. You're consumers. And providers of Mexican goods will want to buy the goods somewhere else, probably at higher expense (but well under 20%). Or pay the tax. Either way, the products get more expensive. And no Obama you as a consumer could thank for that.
And you probably won't get much out of this tax, and effectively it might cost you more than you take in.
Now what this tax would probably achieve: An economical blow to Mexico.
Which would most certainly lead to what?
Increased immigration, increased crime, increased drug trafficking, all that. If Mexicos economy is down, migration pressure is up. If powerty is up, crime is up.
That plan doesn't sound so great to me.

Now you might say, utter nonsense, you have NO idea what you're talking about. And fair enough.
Still I gave you more here than Trump ever gave you.
Because you have NO idea either and yet believe Trump. THAT is the problem.

(09-23-2016, 03:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: *sighs Islamic immigration is not a problem yet. Why do we have to wait for it to be a problem before doing something about it? I don't want to see what's happening in France and Europe happening here. We already have enough problems with Cartels from the Border, we don't need more from that direction.

I'm sorry, what were you saying about Islamic immigration thru Mexico?
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/06/muslim-captured-coming-over-southern-u-s-border-had-ties-to-Taliban
SOB.

Oh snap, you found this guy. Scary.

Just think of that.
The chance that an American would be killed in a terrorist attack committed by a refugee was 1 in 3.64 billion a year. (now that's a study)
Now that is not "the one and only truth", but there isn't a truth possible denying that simple fact.
The chances you get killed by a fellow US citizen?
Since Sept. 11, 118 people in USA killed by terror attacks, while more than 230,000 Americans have been murdered (now these are actual numbers).

So... if you're so afraid of that guy, you must be so much more afraid of your neighbour.

And don't even think about entering a plane. Applying your rate of afraidness, you might feel practically dead.

(09-23-2016, 03:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Shovels? There's a technology that will detect tunnels.

Wow, that is so cool. The tunnel-detector. How does that work?

(09-23-2016, 03:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Ladders? just how short do you think the wall is going to be?

How big do you think it would be?
Trump said something about 40 ft, right.

Now look what I found: amazing stuff

(09-23-2016, 03:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Boats? how is a boat going to go thru, over or under a wall? Maybe you're talking where the coast is?

Well, maybe I am talking about that, yes. What was your first clue?

(09-23-2016, 03:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: IF we have the wall up, less resources will be needed guarding the walls so we can concentrate more on other areas. *sighs, Never said they couldn't solve it, but it is a big deterrent. They could go thru Canada, but first they have to get into Canada. And improved vetting here in the US.

So... you're to a large extent are building a wall so terrorists would have to take a detour. Gosh, they will be so pissed about that delay. Well played.
Improved vetting, now that seems like a reasonable measurement in better proportion to the problem.

(09-23-2016, 03:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Attacking innocents in a Mall or in NYC or anywhere else in the US on a fairly consistent basis is not going to make us afraid or full of fear?

Actually, yes, it really shouldn't. Again, just think about the probabilities of that happening to you.
And since 9/11, how many of these atrocities were "islamic"? And how many were performed by US citizens?

(09-23-2016, 03:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The Wall would provide a security blanket, which would make us feel more secure.

You're exactly right. It would make you feel that way. It's a promised feeling of security. Only a soap bubble. Poof.

(09-23-2016, 03:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Birth in Austria does not automatically mean the child is a citizen, unless at least one of the parents is an Austrian Citizen. Being born there can help speed up the process to get the infant granted citizenship.

That is correct. I do get what you meant now.
I tend to agree with you here, US policy seems a bit strange there.

(09-23-2016, 03:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Why are they locked? Because you don't want uninvited coming in?

Yes...?

(09-23-2016, 03:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: What? I didn't refuse to acknowledge he actually said it? I said it's just bs coming from him. You are the one that seems to be stuck on that point.

Well, now you said it's BS. Before that you sight it "might" be BS. (If you refer to the founders of ISIS stuff here.)

(09-23-2016, 03:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Oh ffs, are you that dense to think that Immigration is the only reason I'm voting for him over Hillary?


Immigration/Wall is the MAIN topic that YOU keep bringing up. I am on Hillary's side on a few things, but unfortunately for her, they are not high enough priorities to me.

No it isn't.
Again and again. I do not want you to vote for Hillary. If you're from the Kentucky side, it really doesn't matter, your vote is unimportant and counted as a red one anyways. If you're from Ohio, I'd prefer you do not vote Trump. But it doesn't really matter, does it. I just don't understand why you go for Trump instead of being outraged about those choices and the system that allows that to happen. That I would get.
Then again, it might mean you have to question parts of your constitution. What from a distant standpoint you really, REALLY should do.

(09-23-2016, 03:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yes they are, they let it grow. They are playing a dangerous game over there in the Middle East by trying to support the Syrian Rebels whom some are playing the double agent game with us to get what they want/need (guns/money), then stabbing us in the back.

Whom should they support then.
What do you or Trump or both of you propose.
This whole syria thing is a mess, but I don't know what Trump is going to do about that.
Ready to send troops again?

(09-23-2016, 03:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Oh so now you know what my expectations of a Trump Presidency are? I don't recall sharing any of that with the MB's. What I want to happen and what I expect will happen are not one and the same.

Well, you expect him to build a wall at no costs. That one you shared.
That's enough for now.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-23-2016, 03:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: Sure.  Show me the numbers.  And while you are at it how spending money on a wall (I can't believe you really think he can do that) will "save" us money.

Already did multiple times. Search the forums, my username subject: anchor babies. It'll pop up soon enough.
50+ Billion per year and growing. Just  to send them to school. Does not include any medical, food stamps, housing that we also provide for them and their families.. 

That's 50+ billion per year at the current rate that we are going in.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-23-2016, 03:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: Okay...stop.



http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/08/14/poll-only-1-percent-african-americans-support-donald-trump



I get it.  You don't care what he does because he will "change" once he holds the most powerful seat in the land.

I knew a lot of girls who dated guys who they just knew were going to change once they were married. 

But no one is "flocking" to Trump.  Just stop.

I can't even get to the rest after that one. 

We'll see when the time comes. I've not been paying extreme attention to the polls, but watching Prominent Black leaders in the last month that normally side with the Democrats announce that they are siding with Trump. I know that makes it harder for you to sleep at night, so I'll leave it at that.

[Aquapod770]

(09-23-2016, 03:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: Okay...stop.



http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/08/14/poll-only-1-percent-african-americans-support-donald-trump



I get it.  You don't care what he does because he will "change" once he holds the most powerful seat in the land.

I knew a lot of girls who dated guys who they just knew were going to change once they were married. 

But no one is "flocking" to Trump.  Just stop.

I can't even get to the rest after that one. 

+/- 9.5% pts.   


That said, a vast majority of polls are dumb.

[GMDino]

(09-23-2016, 10:48 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: We'll see when the time comes. I've not been paying extreme attention to the polls, but watching Prominent Black leaders in the last month that normally side with the Democrats announce that they are siding with Trump. I know that makes it harder for you to sleep at night, so I'll leave it at that.

(09-23-2016, 03:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So you admit that you don't care what the left is doing even though they are also causing a racial divide in the US?
Trump might be blunt, but his edges can be smoothed out and he is trying more than Hillary is to be fair to all. In case you haven't noticed. Trump has been stealing the Black vote and the Hispanic votes from Hillary left and right. If he's such a racist full of hate speech, then why are they flocking towards him?

All seriousness aside if you believe what you wrote the only reason I would lose sleep is for fear of how some people can ignore reality.

[GMDino]

(09-23-2016, 11:08 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: +/- 9.5% pts.   


That said, a vast majority of polls are dumb.

Which is the gist of the first article I quoted.

But he's certainly doing better than Romney but not as well as his supporters want to believe.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-23-2016, 05:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: Your post is quite a mess :) so I only can answer parts where I'm pretty sure what they refer to.


Well, the first thing you said was Trump will find a way. I guess he said "believe me", and of course you do. What is there not to believe.
So what is the way. Taxing outgoing money to Mexico, I hear.
Now keep thinking. I'm in no way an expert here, but allow me.
The money is not transferred and then just lies on Mexico's bank account, for starters.
First, you can tax the "private" transfers, money sent to Mexico directly. By Mexicans working in the US sending it to their families. Now if that is taxed, the Mexican probably would start sending actual products instead of money. If you want to tax that, you have to tax all exported goods to Mexico. Which might mean there is little to no export to Mexico anymore.
Now you can tax the money the US spends to buy Mexican stuff.
Does that sound good?
It might not be. You're consumers. And providers of Mexican goods will want to buy the goods somewhere else, probably at higher expense (but well under 20%). Or pay the tax. Either way, the products get more expensive. And no Obama you as a consumer could thank for that.
And you probably won't get much out of this tax, and effectively it might cost you more than you take in.
Now what this tax would probably achieve: An economical blow to Mexico.
Which would most certainly lead to what?
Increased immigration, increased crime, increased drug trafficking, all that. If Mexicos economy is down, migration pressure is up. If powerty is up, crime is up.
That plan doesn't sound so great to me.

Now you might say, utter nonsense, you have NO idea what you're talking about. And fair enough.
Still I gave you more here than Trump ever gave you.
Because you have NO idea either and yet believe Trump. THAT is the problem.

You're right I did start with I believe Trump will find a way, but that was based off of the fact that he had already announce multiple possible ways to go about it. SO it's more of a matter of going with the best option, and that option is to charge a tax on all money leaving the US and going to other countries.

That's not how it works, I send money internationally quite often. You are taxed immediately on it. 
Yes people could send goods and tax those as well, private goods vs business goods are not shipped the same way, so it's easy to tell. And yes, I send goods overseas as well.

Dino suggested they could send Money orders/travelers checks etc, but if you have ever sent mail internationally, you'll know it's pretty expensive and it's not the most reliable method. 

The rest of your post about taxing businesses and ruining economies is not likely going to happen. That stuff falls under NAFTA, which Trump has stated needs to be re-negotiated and the Mexican President was open to that. 

Because I believe Trump? WTF kinda BS is that? If I believed Hillary, you'd be ok with that? Seriously, until either person IS actually the POTUS, we can only take them at face value, but that doesn't mean we have to ignore their past track records either.

(09-23-2016, 05:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh snap, you found this guy. Scary.

Just think of that.
The chance that an American would be killed in a terrorist attack committed by a refugee was 1 in 3.64 billion a year. (now that's a study)
Now that is not "the one and only truth", but there isn't a truth possible denying that simple fact.
The chances you get killed by a fellow US citizen?
Since Sept. 11, 118 people in USA killed by terror attacks, while more than 230,000 Americans have been murdered (now these are actual numbers).

So... if you're so afraid of that guy, you must be so much more afraid of your neighbour.

And don't even think about entering a plane. Applying your rate of afraidness, you might feel practically dead.

Oh Snap, he's not the only guy that's tried. I was just giving you the most current one I could find to show you that they will try to come that way. Did you forget you said this?

"But you can't seriously tell me that islamic immigration through Mexico is a huge problem that needs to be addressed by a wall."


Why do we have to wait for it to be a problem? Get the wall going, improve the vetting and actively deport people that break the laws. Why not be Pro-Active instead of Re-Active? I'm not scared of them here in Cincinnati, but I have family and relatives in border states and I do feel for them.


Where did you get your "Since sept 11, 118 people have been killed by terrorist attacks), I'm pretty sure that number is way off. In fact, I know it is. I've seen one site before. Their exclusion are very tricky. If they are Muslim, yet a USC and kill in the name of Islam it doesn't count them as terrorists.

(09-23-2016, 05:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: Wow, that is so cool. The tunnel-detector. How does that work?


How big do you think it would be?
Trump said something about 40 ft, right.

Now look what I found: amazing stuff

Didn't the US just give Israel $120 Million for them to implement their new Tunnel Technology?

https://www.rt.com/news/331331-us-israel-tunnel-detection/

LOL a ladder from a Home Depot in the USA. I guess they could mail order it, or have a relative send them one.


It's really baffling to me for you to think that we would build and wall and leave it unguarded.

(09-23-2016, 05:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, maybe I am talking about that, yes. What was your first clue?


So... you're to a large extent are building a wall so terrorists would have to take a detour. Gosh, they will be so pissed about that delay. Well played.
Improved vetting, now that seems like a reasonable measurement in better proportion to the problem.


Actually, yes, it really shouldn't. Again, just think about the probabilities of that happening to you.
And since 9/11, how many of these atrocities were "islamic"? And how many were performed by US citizens?


You're exactly right. It would make you feel that way. It's a promised feeling of security. Only a soap bubble. Poof.

By having the Wall, you'd free up resources for securing Oceanic Borders.

Wow, you jumping to conclusions there. No, it is to keep out all illegal immigrants and prevent drug cartels from walking their drugs over in the "unguarded areas". A by product would be that people from every where could have a very very slim chance of getting past the wall, which includes terrorists. If you don't think that they aren't trying to figure out ways to get over here, you are nuts. Yes the vetting is critical as well. 

The probabilities of it happening to me are very slim next to nil. However that doesn't mean I want it to happen to anyone. I want all American's safe.

Just because you are a USC does not mean that you can't be Islamic and carry out acts of terror in the name of Islam. That still makes you a terrorist.

Haha feelings again. You use words like I hear and I'm not capping on you for that. 

Agree or Disagree: One of the jobs of leaders of any nation is to make sure the people feel safe. 

The wall will make us safer, thus we will feel more secure inside our own borders. This will allow us to focus on other things.

(09-23-2016, 05:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: That is correct. I do get what you meant now.
I tend to agree with you here, US policy seems a bit strange there.


Yes...?


Well, now you said it's BS. Before that you sight it "might" be BS. (If you refer to the founders of ISIS stuff here.) Actually a continuation of you stating that Trump could shoot someone and I would still vote for him. I know what he said, and it's an idiotic comment and not true.


No it isn't.
Again and again. I do not want you to vote for Hillary. If you're from the Kentucky side, it really doesn't matter, your vote is unimportant and counted as a red one anyways. If you're from Ohio, I'd prefer you do not vote Trump. But it doesn't really matter, does it. I just don't understand why you go for Trump instead of being outraged about those choices and the system that allows that to happen. That I would get.
Then again, it might mean you have to question parts of your constitution. What from a distant standpoint you really, REALLY should do.

Glad we cleared up Jus Soli (citizenship by being born in the country) and Jus Sangruis (citizenship by blood). 
And want this to pass as well, so it will put the brakes on people sneaking into the country just to have their baby here so they can try to prevent themselves from being deported. 

your "Yes.. " comment, so you keep your doors locked because you don't want the uninvited coming into your home. So why is it so outrageous to want a wall on the southern border to keep out the uninvited? 

Uhm I'm not from the Kentucky or the Ohio side. I'm from a different Red state. :)
We can be outraged, but it is what it is. Why I go for Trump? Simple, Hillary has been in the system for 24 years, she has very little to show for it in terms of accomplishments. Which just tells me that she's just "here" but not going to do much more than she's already done. She boasts of all of these great plans she has to fix things, why didn't she start the ball rolling while she was SOS and take the credit for them? It would've built up her POTUS resume nicely and she would've had the fast track to it.

(09-23-2016, 05:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: Whom should they support then.
What do you or Trump or both of you propose.
This whole syria thing is a mess, but I don't know what Trump is going to do about that.
Ready to send troops again?

Personally, I don't like most of the options, but I would support Assad.
If we wanted to convert a country to Democracy, we are going to have to Occupy it for a very long time. It takes time to get people to change and some never do.

If it's to wipe out ISIS, absolutely. 

(09-23-2016, 05:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, you expect him to build a wall at no costs. That one you shared.
That's enough for now.

Again missing it. I want him to build a wall and would like for it to happen. I'm not sure he can do it.  Congress Approval is needed for the spending of the money on the wall.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/17/texas-border-wall-trump/90503360/

Since we are talking about the wall trump wants to build, I thought this was an interesting read. These were comments from residents actually living there specifically in Texas. The consensus among these residents is that the wall would be ineffective, costly and an eye sore just like the existing one and most of the residents commenting describe themselves as conservative. The main problem it seems is that most of the land on both sides of the border in Texas is private land often handed down for generations. Trump would face pretty stiff resistance just like the federal government already has.

[GMDino]

(09-24-2016, 03:08 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/17/texas-border-wall-trump/90503360/

Since we are talking about the wall trump wants to build, I thought this was an interesting read.  These were comments from residents actually living there specifically in Texas.  The consensus among these residents is that the wall would be ineffective, costly and an eye sore just like the existing one and most of the residents commenting describe themselves as conservative.  The main problem it seems is that most of the land on both sides of the border in Texas is private land often handed down for generations.  Trump would face pretty stiff resistance just like the federal government already has.

Well maybe those are some the regulations he plans to get rid of?

[hollodero]

(09-24-2016, 02:06 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You're right I did start with I believe Trump will find a way, but that was based off of the fact that he had already announce multiple possible ways to go about it. SO it's more of a matter of going with the best option, and that option is to charge a tax on all money leaving the US and going to other countries.

That's not how it works, I send money internationally quite often. You are taxed immediately on it.
Yes people could send goods and tax those as well, private goods vs business goods are not shipped the same way, so it's easy to tell. And yes, I send goods overseas as well.

Dino suggested they could send Money orders/travelers checks etc, but if you have ever sent mail internationally, you'll know it's pretty expensive and it's not the most reliable method.

Again, not an expert.
But a few things: First of, there already IS a tax, you say. An immediate one.
Again, I want to figure out how Trump will build the wall with Mexico paying for it - or not Mexico, there are "other ideas" - but NOT the US tax payer.
So if "tax outgoing money" should rise this 20-25 billion (let's say 20, Trump IS of course the best in building walls ever) for the wall and then at least 10 billion a year for maintaining it - then the tax would have to be a lot higher than it is now.
Which would only lead to more money if everyone would send money abroad as they used to do. Naturally, people wouldn't. You might see some good in that at first, ok keep the money in the country. (Might create jobs, although probably with wages much closer to Indian wages. And maybe a wall tax, for the wall still has to be kept maintained.) But you would also - including big business - more and more exclude yourself from world economy. Americans are not famous for praising the self-sufficient lifestyle. Plus, you would miss again the money.
Trump is a businessman. He knows he can't just put an enormous tax on outgoing money. I don't quite know where to even start on this one.

Again, the main and only point is that I laid out more of my - definitely ignorant - point then Trump ever did. That IS a problem. Since he gives not a single specific and just says "trust me" or "believe me", everyone figures out something out of the blue - to create billions of money out of the blue, without harsh consequences on your wealth and lifestyle. Because they want to believe. That is - absurd. Why don't you insist on your right to know something factual about the actual plan?
What has Trump ever done so you would blindly trust him?

(09-24-2016, 02:06 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Because I believe Trump? WTF kinda BS is that? If I believed Hillary, you'd be ok with that? Seriously, until either person IS actually the POTUS, we can only take them at face value, but that doesn't mean we have to ignore their past track records either.

OK... I don't know. You bring Hillary up, I don't care about her here and ever. Here's how I see your election: You have a disgusting choice and a poisonous one. I am perfectly fine with anyone not eating up the disgusting choice. I am a bit more concerned about people going for the poison. The worst case scenario for a Hillary presidency: Some more fiddling about with stuff, nothing essential, maybe a scandal, whatever. She is, after all, not crazy. The worst case for a Trump presidency though? Seriously, there's little I can think of which might not be thinkable. That is my main point - that he is a demagogue and an irrational, self-centered deeply narcissistic man. Which is the worst person you could go for.

Now "proof" (if you will) for the first one: He doesn't give you anything but fear and a promise to do something about it. These two things. It's what a demagogue does.
"Proof" for the second one: He puts his name on towers and believes he knows more about everything than anybody. That's what HE says. He knows more about ISIS than the generals, he knows so much about the military, he is the best in making deals, in the economy, he alone can fix the system and so on. It's not my take, it's what he says.

And at this point, I really do not care about the opponent.

(09-24-2016, 02:06 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Oh Snap, he's not the only guy that's tried. I was just giving you the most current one I could find to show you that they will try to come that way. Did you forget you said this?

"But you can't seriously tell me that islamic immigration through Mexico is a huge problem that needs to be addressed by a wall."


Why do we have to wait for it to be a problem? Get the wall going, improve the vetting and actively deport people that break the laws. Why not be Pro-Active instead of Re-Active? I'm not scared of them here in Cincinnati, but I have family and relatives in border states and I do feel for them.

You meet the problem with measures that are proportionate to the size of the problem. How big of a problem it is - hence what these measures should be -, that's up to the political debate, can be seen quite differently. But the problem of islamic immigration at this point does not require a 20 billion dollar expense. That's my point here.

Here's my main reason. If you (I don't mean you personally, I mean a typical American) is afraid of terror, he has to be

- very afraid of his neighbor
- terrified to death of planes
- bound to sign his last will before he ever enters public traffic.

That's just how it is, no matter if my numbers are accurate or can be counted differently. There are still huge differences/proportions to everyday things that are far more dangerous.

(09-24-2016, 02:06 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: LOL a ladder from a Home Depot in the USA. I guess they could mail order it, or have a relative send them one.

You guess?
I guess if it's available at home depot, it's also available in Mexico. That sounds like a fair assumption, don't you agree. They did advance to a certain technological age, too, you know. They grasped the concept of ladders. Your wall will always be climbable with Mexican ladders. That's just a fact.

(09-24-2016, 02:06 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It's really baffling to me for you to think that we would build and wall and leave it unguarded.

YOU claimed you would have much more resources freed (eg for guarding the coasts) once the wall is up. So sure, there will be guarding, like there is guarding now (just less, because as you said, freed resources). I do not even claim that a wall wouldn't to some extent impede people crossing the border. It most probably would.
But it will be far from impassable. If you want it to be impassable, you have to shoot everyone that comes close. That's how it worked - that was the only way it worked - in Berlin.
If you choose to not be so barbaric, you might experience a sharp growth in what you obviously call "coyotes" (and more people that go by road and simply don't return home - what you do against that). Drug smuggling will be difficult, but the old "spy on the one side, howl like a wolf if it's clear and then pass the people or drugs over" will not be shut down either. If someone really wants to get in, he still gets in. That's just how it is. When you evaluate the possible worth a wall has, you have to see that clear as well. It's logical.

(09-24-2016, 02:06 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Agree or Disagree: One of the jobs of leaders of any nation is to make sure the people feel safe. 

The wall will make us safer, thus we will feel more secure inside our own borders. This will allow us to focus on other things.

First off, don't accuse me of always bringing up feelings when you yourself repeatedly use the phrase "we feel". I just agree with you. You feel.
And to your statement: That is not the leaders job, it's more a common consequence of the leader's job. His job is to do what's best for the country and its people. (Caring about the world around too is also welcome.) That's a leader's job. Safety for the people stems from that. If people need irrational amounts of expenses to feel safe, at some point it's the leaders job to say: No. We don't cut our country off or spend huge amounts of tax money so you feel protected. Simple as that. Now where this point lies, one might argue. But for your statement itself, disagree.

(09-24-2016, 02:06 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And want this to pass as well, so it will put the brakes on people sneaking into the country just to have their baby here so they can try to prevent themselves from being deported. 

That I can understand.

(09-24-2016, 02:06 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: your "Yes.. " comment, so you keep your doors locked because you don't want the uninvited coming into your home. So why is it so outrageous to want a wall on the southern border to keep out the uninvited? 

Because the analogy simply doesn't work. My house is not my country, it's my personal property. The streets are not. I don't want a wall around my country even though I lock my door.
Your analogy would work if you see the US as your personal property. That is quite backwards. But allright, if you see it that way, it's your point of view. Isolate the US. Still doesn't mean Trump has anything to offer which your or anyone's intellect could examine.

(09-24-2016, 02:06 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Uhm I'm not from the Kentucky or the Ohio side. I'm from a different Red state. :)

Oh I see :) Your city is complicated.

(09-24-2016, 02:06 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: We can be outraged, but it is what it is. Why I go for Trump? Simple, Hillary has been in the system for 24 years, she has very little to show for it in terms of accomplishments. Which just tells me that she's just "here" but not going to do much more than she's already done. She boasts of all of these great plans she has to fix things, why didn't she start the ball rolling while she was SOS and take the credit for them? It would've built up her POTUS resume nicely and she would've had the fast track to it.

From all I've heard, you might as well be right there. (I don't really know, of course.)
Still, as I said, that's not the worst outcome, it's just not particularly good.
Experience in politics isn't only a bad thing, though. Being an "Outsider" is a strange appeal. She at least knows how the system works on the inside. Trmup just knows how to exploit it from the outside.
Now I might get the appeal that you want the system to be broken. But be careful what you wish for. What's the alternative.
A Trump is not a very good one. Unless you really like Autocracy Russian style. Only with a mind not half as clear as your hero Putin's.

(09-24-2016, 02:06 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Personally, I don't like most of the options, but I would support Assad.

Cool stuff. You do know that Assad said there's never peace with your ally Israel, made at least 65.000 of his people disappear and got a multiple of that number killed in the civil war he to a big part (one can argue there, but he is not innocent) is responsible for. Call him Saddam.

And thinking of the civil war killing hundreds of thousands - please rethink your stance on islamic immigration. These people are fleeing death and destruction and in many cases those very extreme islamists you so lively depicted.
What about them?
Btw. it would also be nice if you took some. Europes countries do have their limits as well (and there sure have to be), and that whole Middle East situation is kind of your mess too. Wouldn't that be nice.

Btw. until now you went with the Kurds. Now you want to turn to their enemy. What is it with the Kurds that you feel the urge to use and then betray them again and again? That's also on Hillary and I know that, I'm really not a fan. Just what have they done to you that you treat them like garbage even though they are the only ones there that somehow still like you.

(09-24-2016, 02:06 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: If we wanted to convert a country to Democracy, we are going to have to Occupy it for a very long time. It takes time to get people to change and some never do.

If it's to wipe out ISIS, absolutely.

Well, ok then. I was just curious.

(09-24-2016, 02:06 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Again missing it. I want him to build a wall and would like for it to happen. I'm not sure he can do it.  Congress Approval is needed for the spending of the money on the wall.

I see. So if there's no wall, you already have someone else to blame. Cool.

[Belsnickel]

(09-23-2016, 01:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I'm aware of that, but many people don't see him that way.

I see you ignored my question about leaving your doors unlocked.

And that does nothing to dispute what I said and does more to dispute it. As to the second bit: huh? Unless you directed it at me, I didn't read it. The novellas being written on here aren't something I am going to dig through.

[fredtoast]

(09-23-2016, 01:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Dang, good thing I got my info from reputable websites such as PBS.org, USA Today, The Guardian and CBS News, cause you know if they say it, it has to be true.

No you did not get that information from any of those sites and you can not provide a link to anything like that.