Right-wing populism.

[fredtoast]

(09-23-2016, 01:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yes she did, she called them both unarmed black men. This is another term for innocent black men.  

No she did not.

You have to stop being such a rube.  Try learning things for yourself instead of believing everything the right-wing rhetoric machine produces.

[fredtoast]

(09-23-2016, 03:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote:  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?

 

OMG This is getting hilarious.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-24-2016, 02:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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?

Please stop, it is grossly apparent that you don't understand how sending remittances works. The only tax on sending money over seas is if you send more than $14k per person annually.

If you send  more than $14k, say $40k, then you send it to 4 people at $10k each and you pay nothing. Now I'm not sure about you, but I'm sure the majority don't send more than $14k annually and if they do, they will do it exactly like I just said. The tax proposed by TRUMP won't matter who you are sending it to or how much.

Why did you change the number from $225B to $25B? Big difference in tax amount needed there.

The Majority of the people that send money overseas are not Americans, so very few will actually have to pay the tax on that (I would be one of them).

Hunh? What? You are not following this well, besides not understanding how this works, you are also changing the numbers.

TRUMP Has proposed this as 1 of multiple ways to get the money for the wall. This one is the best so far. Could there be other ways proposed between now and once he becomes POTUS that might be better? Absolutely, so that is why I said, if the Wall is that important to him, then I believe he will keep trying to find a way to get the money for it.

This is also the exact way I said 6 months to a year ago before Trump had proposed this as an alternative.

(09-24-2016, 02:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

You might not care about the Opponent, but I do, she's just as irrational, self-centered and deeply narcissistic as Trump. Try watching a Press Conference when someone asks her a question she doesn't like. They get the ice queen stare from her and an answer that doesn't answer anything other than she's not going to talk about it.

Here's the thing, in a Debate, Hillary would probably crush Trump if they stuck to the issues, because she's a seasoned politician. However in a rally, Trump would crush her because he's much more Charismatic than her as a public speaker. So while I expect that she will win the debates, he will have to work hard outside of the debates to make up for lost ground.

Poof, the first one keeps telling us she's going to tax the rich to pay for all of these wonderful plans she wants to spend money on. I call bull crap. She doesn't want to do that because that includes her and all of her donors. She's just telling the weak minded, poor and uneducated masses what they want to hear by playing Robin Hood. She will "try something", and with out fear knows the Republican Congress will shoot it down, then play the blame game on them for it, and in the end nothing will change and she will probably drag us into another war. For all of Trump's craziness, he has clearly stated that he does not want the US involved in anymore wars other than to take out ISIS.

With Trump, he's at least Crazy enough to call out Congress men/women and shame them into voting his way.

If the Generals we have currently knew so much about how to defeat ISIS, then why didn't they take the oil away from them asap? Instead of letting them accrue Billions in $$?

(09-24-2016, 02:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

Oh god, the wall again.
HOLLODERO, the wall's main purpose is to keep out Illegals coming thru from Central America, South America and Mexico. A by product is that it is also a bonus that helps us to keep out Muslims that might try to come in from that direction. It is not being built with the sole idea of keeping out Muslims, and another by product is a huge blow to the "War on Drugs" we've been waging for a few decades now. Get it thru your head and quit twisting it to try to change the meaning.

There are many people already afraid of their Neighbors and terrified of planes and that doesn't have anything to do with Terrorism.

Who's playing the rhetoric game now?

(09-24-2016, 02:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.


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.


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.

Yes we would have more resources to deal with other issues. We would also have a nice be fat annual income to the amount of resources already dedicated to the wall. Are you saying we can't use Drones to monitor the walls? Then as trouble is spotted dispatch the nearest group(s) to intercept?

However, I've never stated that it will be 100% perfect in preventing people from coming over, but it will 100% better than what we've currently got. The idea is to slow it down to as close to nil as possible.

"I feel" is an assertiveness that is commonly used in conversations, that was my point, is that you are using it as well because you don't know all of the answers any more than I do.

Why all of the extra verbiage? In the end, you agreed that a leader needs to make the people feel Safe, which was the point that we were talking about for a right-wing populist? Make the people "feel".
By the way, a one time $20 Billion payment for a wall isn't shit for how much we spend on military annually.

(09-24-2016, 02:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

Oh I see :) Your city is complicated.

That is correct. the US is the personal property of the USC's. If you belong to another country and wish to come here and get a piece, then you need to file paperwork, pay for it, and get approved. Then you can be granted a piece.
If you don't do that, then you are not guaranteed anything and there is consequences for your actions (deported).

Always is :)

(09-24-2016, 02:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

You really don't like Trump. I don't like Hillary.
I would willing to roll the dice with Trump before I would with Hillary.
For someone who is from another country, you sure seem confident about knowing Trump, but not Hillary, when she's been a more prominent figure in the US Politics world for a long time. 
Do you listen to his actual speeches or just go by what the media tells you?
He has made his fair share of blunders, but it's ok, he's learning. Hillary is still making blunder after blunder, but not learning.

(09-24-2016, 02:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.


Well, ok then. I was just curious.


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

That's fine, Assad ruled with a strong military presence, he didn't invaded anyone. It only fell apart because we forced it to.
We can't make every country become a democratic country, they will when they are ready.

Saddam is a little bit different. It's a shame the intel was bad (WMD's). Otherwise the war might have been avoided. Then there is also the rumor that in the final hours before the invasion that he was willing to surrender, more bloodshed could've been avoided, but was wanted.

Gaddafi was ready to abdicate, but that wasn't good enough for our SOS and POTUS because they weren't sure if the new person would be friendly to the US or not. So they had him killed as well and it cost us some blood shed as well. I don't think the US is interested in peace in the ME, they are interested in the resources and if peace happens then great.

Blame game for the wall? Hell Obama is still blaming Bush, and it's been almost 8 years now.

[hollodero]

(09-26-2016, 07:20 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Please stop, it is grossly apparent that you don't understand how sending remittances works. The only tax on sending money over seas is if you send more than $14k per person annually.

If you send  more than $14k, say $40k, then you send it to 4 people at $10k each and you pay nothing. Now I'm not sure about you, but I'm sure the majority don't send more than $14k annually and if they do, they will do it exactly like I just said. The tax proposed by TRUMP won't matter who you are sending it to or how much.

Why did you change the number from $225B to $25B? Big difference in tax amount needed there.

The Majority of the people that send money overseas are not Americans, so very few will actually have to pay the tax on that (I would be one of them).

1. You're right, I do not understand much of all that. Who said I can just an argue my point without being clueless and curious at the same time... :)
2. Here's what doesn't get in my head. If so many few people would have to pay the tax - as you stated -, how will this tax ever revenue the costs of a wall? (Which is 20 billion for starters and 10-15 billion annually, at least these are the very lowest estimates I could find.)

As for the rest... someone rightfully used the word "novellas", and at this point I'd start repeating myself. So let's watch the debate first :)

[Rotobeast]

(09-26-2016, 08:53 PM)hollodero Wrote: 2. Here's what doesn't get in my head. If so many few people would have to pay the tax - as you stated -, how will this tax ever revenue the costs of a wall? (Which is 20 billion for starters and 10-15 billion annually, at least these are the very lowest estimates I could find.)

Elon Musk will build part of his Hyper-loop within the wall.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-26-2016, 08:53 PM)hollodero Wrote: 1. You're right, I do not understand much of all that. Who said I can just an argue my point without being clueless and curious at the same time... :)
2. Here's what doesn't get in my head. If so many few people would have to pay the tax - as you stated -, how will this tax ever revenue the costs of a wall? (Which is 20 billion for starters and 10-15 billion annually, at least these are the very lowest estimates I could find.)

As for the rest... someone rightfully used the word "novellas", and at this point I'd start repeating myself. So let's watch the debate first :)

Good, cause I'm tired of the novella's too.
If you have a specific point or question feel free to ask.

FYI, taxing of annual remittances worth
10% of $225B is $22.5B
15% of $225B is $33.75B
20% of $225B is $43B

That's for one year, now it would most likely go down, but not by much, maybe $25B. So we'd lose $2-4B annually in taxes, but the rest would still be there, which is more than enough to build the wall and increase security on it.

Immigration is back on the rise, our economy has somewhat recovered and they are coming back now.
Say we currently get 500k per year (Last estimate in 2011 was for 462k) that manage to get across.

Estimate 20% have 1 kid after they get here. That's 100k kids (1 kid is just for starters, most likely they will have 2-3)
It costs the US $12,600 per student.
So for K-12th grade those 100k students, the tax payers are out: $1.26B annually.
Multiply that by 13 (to cover all grades) and we get $16.38B annually (this number does not include any other benefits we give them).

We know the wall will not be 100% perfect, so let's say only 5% make it now. So now, Illegal Immigration has dropped to less that 25k making it over/under/around the wall per year. 25k with 20% having a kid, is only 5k kids annually. Now it's $63M annually for those 5k and for all grade levels $819M annually. Big change, now we can use that money to beef up the education system.

Do away with the birth on soil and there will be no incentive to having a child born on US soil. Meaning even less kids.

Now for the War on Drugs,
The US spends about $50B annually on this (Fed+Local level)

I would suggest legalizing Marijuana, then going back and looking at all inmates that were arrested for Marijuana only and lowering their sentence time. This would help create room for the more violent criminals.

The smuggling of drugs into the US from the border is a business estimated at a minimum of $50B annually.
Again the wall is not 100% proof, so let's say only 10% make it now. Just wanted to point out that 80-90% of all illegal drugs in the US come from the US-Mexico border.

The business just dropped to $5B annually, that's a pretty big hit to the Drug Lords in Mexico's pockets, maybe now they will be weakened enough for the Mexican government to start shutting them down.

Not only that, but it really helps in our Drug War. Now we can use the money to beef up security at International Airports/Seaports and Guard our Coast Lines.

So with all of these numbers, the cost of a Wall isn't that outrageous, nor is the overall benefits of having it. There could be other benefits that I might not know about, but that's 2 of the biggest money savers that I can actually think of.

I've shown a couple of "pros" for the wall. 
Shown how in the long run it can save us more money than it actually cost to build it.

Now if you can show me numbers and use somewhat real estimates to get $'s etc, then I will be happy to listen.
If all you have is but but but but's then I will ignore you.

[GMDino]

People still think he's going to be the wall?

[hollodero]

(09-27-2016, 12:22 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I've shown a couple of "pros" for the wall. 
Shown how in the long run it can save us more money than it actually cost to build it.

Have to give that to you... you really did make an effort. I doubt most of the things you said, but you actually did think about it. When did Trump take his whole "Mexico's going to pay for it" back?
One thing you kind of have to admit though: I gave the whole idea much more credit then most of your fellow american opponents would here. I did not try to ridicule it beyond reason.

I'm just "saying it as it is" here, if you will.
There is of course a personal stance. I do not believe in walls. I do not believe they achieve anything to make mankind better, to make relations better, to solve problems, I think they are backwards thinking and denying the world as what it will become and has to become, a place where people get closer. I consider these things important issues and I can't help but seeing things that way. Won't bore you with details. But sure, that's how I "feel" in the first place.

I do try to get the other stance, though. Fighting crime, drugs and terrorists are sure valid talking points and don't necessarily have to stem from a xenophobic background. These racism thing gets pure rhetoric too easily, too. So leaving that out (which I tried to do), there still is severe doubt that the possible positive effects even remotely justify the effort.

About the effects:

- There's a good chance a terrorist won't be stopped by the wall. So this terrorist argument is really thin. You kind of said so yourself after capitalizing my alias :)
- Drugs, I give you that that it probably will be hampered. I guess your "90%" estimate of how much it can be reduced is grossly overstated. Drugs don't just come over the green border, there are other ways. And cartels will find new ones; you can't shut down your country completely. I give you 50%, and that's generous.
- Immigrants. Look. I'm not on my strong foot here, so I will apply benefit of the doubt here and believe some of your estimates regarding the costs. 
But these illegal immigrants don't all exactly swim the Rio Grande. Many (probably up to half of them) just get in with visas and stay. You think only 5% would make it with a wall? I think that's in no way supported by - reality. Logically, denying Mexicans visas would be far more effective to achieve your goal. (I would never support that, of course.) If you don't, what's a wall really gonna do?
Or do you indeed want to file a follow-up statement regarding visas. If you don't, no way you stop 95%. No way.

So ok, it might not sum up to "zero", these effects. That I still can acknowledge.

And now for the effort.

This really is the best, most cost-efficient solution you could come up with? Just look at what you just built. Not only a wall that is 2.000 miles long, but also equipped with fancy tunnel detection technology, observed by drohnes and applied with quick response forces in case the drones see something. It probably is lighted by night (so the quick response forces don't accidentally run into the wall...), what a monument. Wonder if you can see it from the moon. What a sight.
And what a lovely gesture towards Mexico. (Not that you might consider that important, but I do.)

A few years ago, this would have been unthinkable. (And not that it matters, but I liked that America better.)

What happened? (Open question :) )

And it's a part of an even bigger picture, which was the initial point of this thread. Right-wing populism. That's what happened.
Now if you want to respond or not - that's up to you. I did include a wikipedia link, though.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-27-2016, 05:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: Have to give that to you... you really did make an effort. I doubt most of the things you said, but you actually did think about it. When did Trump take his whole "Mexico's going to pay for it" back?


- Drugs, I give you that that it probably will be hampered. I guess your "90%" estimate of how much it can be reduced is grossly overstated. Drugs don't just come over the green border, there are other ways. And cartels will find new ones; you can't shut down your country completely. I give you 50%, and that's generous.
- Immigrants. Look. I'm not on my strong foot here, so I will apply benefit of the doubt here and believe some of your estimates regarding the costs. 
But these illegal immigrants don't all exactly swim the Rio Grande. Many (probably up to half of them) just get in with visas and stay. You think only 5% would make it with a wall? I think that's in no way supported by - reality. Logically, denying Mexicans visas would be far more effective to achieve your goal. (I would never support that, of course.) If you don't, what's a wall really gonna do?
Or do you indeed want to file a follow-up statement regarding visas. If you don't, no way you stop 95%. No way.

So ok, it might not sum up to "zero", these effects. That I still can acknowledge.

And now for the effort.

This really is the best, most cost-efficient solution you could come up with? Just look at what you just built. Not only a wall that is 2.000 miles long, but also equipped with fancy tunnel detection technology, observed by drohnes and applied with quick response forces in case the drones see something. It probably is lighted by night (so the quick response forces don't accidentally run into the wall...), what a monument. Wonder if you can see it from the moon. What a sight.
And what a lovely gesture towards Mexico. (Not that you might consider that important, but I do.)

A few years ago, this would have been unthinkable. (And not that it matters, but I liked that America better.)

What happened? (Open question :) )

And it's a part of an even bigger picture, which was the initial point of this thread. Right-wing populism. That's what happened.
Now if you want to respond or not - that's up to you. I did include a wikipedia link, though.

? One of Trumps Ideas about how to pay for the wall is what I used.

The 90% on drugs is going to have to be re-routed. They won't just walk over the border or climb the wall or even be able to go under the wall. So you want to go with 50%? That's fine, we just cut the money flowing back into Mexico from $50B to half. Good Damage to the cartels.

I gave you estimated numbers of people that actually CROSS THE BORDER, no visa's involved, so they can not over stay visas. that's a separate category that is tracked by USCIS. There is no need to deny Mexican's a VISA if they are willing to pay for it and go thru the steps necessary to become a USC.

For the Students and Anchor babies, I was very generous in my estimates, go here and you can follow the math for yourself.
http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Europe-and-Muslim-Immigrants?pid=193225#pid193225

Uhm, we wanted a wall back in the 80's.

What happened? We're $20T in Debt, money has got to stop flowing from somewhere. I'm a taxpayer, I can't just keep reaching into my ass and pull money out of thin air. Something has to give. I want the Government to learn how to effing budget with what they have before they start digging into my pocket to help cover the Deficit.

[THE Bigzoman]

(09-20-2016, 02:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's alright, I'll follow along on Die Welt, Der Spiegel, and Deutsche Welle until the election.

Seriously though, I get what you're saying. Everything about Trump and his supporters (not the "eh, it's not Hillary" folks, but the actual supporters) is definitely akin to the right-wing populism going on in Europe right now. I can't decide whether our two-party system makes it worse, or better in our efforts to fight it off.

I think what makes Europe different is that they have a smug **** like Angela Merkel running things. Her open door policy for Syrian "Refugees" (Because seriously, when is the majority of a immigrant group fleeing from war military aged men?) was irresponsible and poorly thought out. No way in hell her party survives next election cycle. They're done.

[hollodero]

(09-27-2016, 07:18 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: ? One of Trumps Ideas about how to pay for the wall is what I used.

He shouted out "Mexico is gonna pay for it" 10.000 times, and his fan boys scant it again and again.

(09-27-2016, 07:18 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I gave you estimated numbers of people that actually CROSS THE BORDER, no visa's involved, so they can not over stay visas. that's a separate category that is tracked by USCIS. There is no need to deny Mexican's a VISA if they are willing to pay for it and go thru the steps necessary to become a USC.

That is getting difficult.
You complain about illegal immigrants and how much they or their kids will cost you. You want to build a wall to reduce illegal immigration by 95%.
FACT is, 40-50% of ILLEGAL immigration takes place with Mexicans enter the US legally with visas and then illegally stay in the country.
This popular form of illegal immigration is not addressed or hampered by a wall. Please tell me you do get that.
Whatever you try to forge here for an argument, it's really more denying realities.

(09-27-2016, 07:18 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Uhm, we wanted a wall back in the 80's.

Reagan wanted to build a wall? Never heard of that.
I do know you had some kind of fence at some time. Which didn't do much good, as far as I heard. I'm just hearing stuff, you know.

(09-27-2016, 07:18 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: What happened? We're $20T in Debt, money has got to stop flowing from somewhere. I'm a taxpayer, I can't just keep reaching into my ass and pull money out of thin air. Something has to give. I want the Government to learn how to effing budget with what they have before they start digging into my pocket to help cover the Deficit.

And yet they should build a fancily equipped wall with money they do not yet possess.
I know you think that is some kind of money-saving wall.
Don't you forget though that these Mexican kids that get education with your money "more likely than not" will stay in the US and later on pay their taxes too. There's no reason to believe the majority of Mexicans are not hard workers that will eventually pay back in taxes. There's no reason to believe Mexicans are more likely to become criminals as US citizens. There's also no reason to believe immigration will ruin the country (for, as you said yourself, increased immigration is a sign of a wealthy economy. If economy isn't wealthy, net immigration tends to trend towards zero).

Both Romneys and Obamas fathers weren't born in the US. It's what made America special to me, that this was possible and no big deal. Now all of a sudden it is. Why? Economy isn't bad, your country isn't hurting, no number would imply otherwise. Why do you think (what Trump tells again and again) your country's wealth goes down the drain right now? It really doesn't. That is something I would consider a big fat lie.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-04-2016, 02:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: He shouted out "Mexico is gonna pay for it" 10.000 times, and his fan boys scant it again and again.

I thought you were tired of being repetitive?
Drop it, he can't negotiate with Mexico from a position of power until he is actually the POTUS, I've covered this already, yet you keep insisting how will he do it? It's up to Trump how he plans to do it, but in case all else fails, he's got alternate methods of gaining the money and those are the methods that I used to show you how easily it would over the costs of the wall.

(10-04-2016, 02:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: That is getting difficult.
You complain about illegal immigrants and how much they or their kids will cost you. You want to build a wall to reduce illegal immigration by 95%.
FACT is, 40-50% of ILLEGAL immigration takes place with Mexicans enter the US legally with visas and then illegally stay in the country.
This popular form of illegal immigration is not addressed or hampered by a wall. Please tell me you do get that.
Whatever you try to forge here for an argument, it's really more denying realities.

That is not a fact, if it is, they why does more than double come from Canada and South America than Mexico? 40% + 80% + 80% is not 100%. What is fact, is the whole process is not stream lined at all. The DHS gets their information from the Airlines, Boats and over land, and we can all agree that Mexico is horrible with data communications, Canada has been terrible as well but they are implementing so new programs that should help their overstays.
Where are you getting your info from? I took mine straight from the 2014 report from DHS https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY%2015%20DHS%20Entry%20and%20Exit%20Overstay%20Report.pdf

Less than 100k overstayed their visas that were from Mexico. That's a significantly smaller number than the number of people coming over the border.

To fix that? I would suggest that there be a better system in place on both border for tracking passports that scan out/in. So who is denying reality? People come in via air, possibly leave in the time frame, but data is not reported properly via airlines/border patrols etc, so it ends up as an overstay.

(10-04-2016, 02:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: Reagan wanted to build a wall? Never heard of that.
I do know you had some kind of fence at some time. Which didn't do much good, as far as I heard. I'm just hearing stuff, you know.

Reagan, Clinton (Hillary was for the wall, now she's against it), Bush (both) all signed to further advance the current setup of Walls/Fences.

(10-04-2016, 02:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: And yet they should build a fancily equipped wall with money they do not yet possess.
I know you think that is some kind of money-saving wall.
Don't you forget though that these Mexican kids that get education with your money "more likely than not" will stay in the US and later on pay their taxes too.

Putin words in my mouth now?

I do believe it to be a money saver. You don't, so stop arguing about it with me.

If you are not a US Citizen, you do not need to be using US Taxpayer money to fund your schooling. That is reserved for children of US taxpayers. Easy to tell people what to do with money when it's not yours hunh? From this point in time going forward, can you send me 10% of your annual earnings weekly, since you apparently like sharing with foreigners.

(10-04-2016, 02:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: There's no reason to believe the majority of Mexicans are not hard workers that will eventually pay back in taxes. There's no reason to believe Mexicans are more likely to become criminals as US citizens. There's also no reason to believe immigration will ruin the country (for, as you said yourself, increased immigration is a sign of a wealthy economy. If economy isn't wealthy, net immigration tends to trend towards zero).

There's no reason to believe most that want to come here want to work and build a better life for themselves, just do it the right way and there is no issue from me. Do it the wrong way, and we have a problem, cause that tells me you aren't respecting the laws of the host country.

(10-04-2016, 02:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: Both Romneys and Obamas fathers weren't born in the US. It's what made America special to me, that this was possible and no big deal.

Now all of a sudden it is. Why? Economy isn't bad, your country isn't hurting, no number would imply otherwise. Why do you think (what Trump tells again and again) your country's wealth goes down the drain right now? It really doesn't. That is something I would consider a big fat lie.

Cool to the first part.
Economy isn't strong enough to keep the current trends going either. It is going down the drain, there's not enough going to the places where it's needed the most. It's being wasted on government departments that are duplicated in each state and at a federal level, there's waste all around. No one wants to step up and trim the fat. Hillary certainly doesn't, she wants to spend more and more and more, that means, I'll pay more and more and more cause she won't tax the elite anymore than Trump would. That's a area where I would consider you as highly uninformed.

For 5 years straight now, we have paid out over $100B in improper purchases.

[Belsnickel]

(09-28-2016, 11:44 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: I think what makes Europe different is that they have a smug **** like Angela Merkel running things. Her open door policy for Syrian "Refugees" (Because seriously, when is the majority of a immigrant group fleeing from war military aged men?) was irresponsible and poorly thought out. No way in hell her party survives next election cycle. They're done.

Didn't see this until just now. First, let me say that Merkel is the Chancellor of Germany, she doesn't run Europe. As for her party surviving? The CDU/CSU coalition is going to lose some power in the Bundestag and Bundesrat, but not a lot. Especially since last I heard SPD was looking at linking arms with them. Merkel may no longer be Chancellor, but her party will still reign. The German people are also becoming more and more wary of the AfD because they have been pulling some really stupid shit lately.

All in all, there will some change in Germany, but not a whole lot.

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2016, 05:45 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: That is not a fact, if it is, they why does more than double come from Canada and South America than Mexico? 40% + 80% + 80% is not 100%. What is fact, is the whole process is not stream lined at all. The DHS gets their information from the Airlines, Boats and over land, and we can all agree that Mexico is horrible with data communications, Canada has been terrible as well but they are implementing so new programs that should help their overstays.
Where are you getting your info from? I took mine straight from the 2014 report from DHS https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY%2015%20DHS%20Entry%20and%20Exit%20Overstay%20Report.pdf

Less than 100k overstayed their visas that were from Mexico. That's a significantly smaller number than the number of people coming over the border.

Your numbers are garbage because they only deal with people arriving byb boat or airline.

Here are more exact numbers

 According to a 2006 Pew Hispanic Center study,1 nearly half of the 12 million-plus illegal aliens in America arrived legally with temporary, non-immigrant visas. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimates that a “substantial” percentage of America’s illegal population is made up of visa overstays — their estimates range from 27 to 57 percent. 


http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2008/back208.pdf



So a giant wall would be a waste of money since it does nothing to stop half of the illegal immigrant problem.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-04-2016, 08:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Your numbers are garbage because they only deal with people arriving byb boat or airline.

Here are more exact numbers

 According to a 2006 Pew Hispanic Center study,1 nearly half of the 12 million-plus illegal aliens in America arrived legally with temporary, non-immigrant visas. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimates that a “substantial” percentage of America’s illegal population is made up of visa overstays — their estimates range from 27 to 57 percent. 


http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2008/back208.pdf



So a giant wall would be a waste of money since it does nothing to stop half of the illegal immigrant problem.

Speaking of garbage, Your stats have a very wide margin of error and the estimate is based off of numbers from 1997. Tracking has gotten better in 20 years and we need to keep improving upon this.

Since I wasn't clear the first time, maybe this time it will sink in.
We are not setup to track people leaving the country like we are for people entering the country.

If they leave via land, we have a very hard time actually getting accurate data from both Mexico and Canada borders. The exits need better service so we can get more accurate info.

[hollodero]

(10-04-2016, 07:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Didn't see this until just now. First, let me say that Merkel is the Chancellor of Germany, she doesn't run Europe. As for her party surviving? The CDU/CSU coalition is going to lose some power in the Bundestag and Bundesrat, but not a lot. Especially since last I heard SPD was looking at linking arms with them. Merkel may no longer be Chancellor, but her party will still reign. The German people are also becoming more and more wary of the AfD because they have been pulling some really stupid shit lately.

All in all, there will some change in Germany, but not a whole lot.

Well, pulling stupid shit didn't stop Trump, right?
I agree somehow with what you said - but I wouldn't be so sure about the AfD. They alredy had tremendous success in federal state elections. Germany (which seems like a huge irony, actually)  used to be the one exception where no real right-wing populist party ever rose to relevance - but I would guess this will change.

[Belsnickel]

(10-07-2016, 11:08 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, pulling stupid shit didn't stop Trump, right?
I agree somehow with what you said - but I wouldn't be so sure about the AfD. They alredy had tremendous success in federal state elections. Germany (which seems like a huge irony, actually)  used to be the one exception where no real right-wing populist party ever rose to relevance - but I would guess this will change.

Yeah, I shouldn't underestimate them. But, Merkel herself has seen a bump in polling lately and we still have yet to see AfD in the Bundestag. Plus some of the recent AfD shenanigans have come after those state elections. I think this will shake out better than a lot of people think.

[hollodero]

(10-04-2016, 05:45 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I thought you were tired of being repetitive?
Drop it, he can't negotiate with Mexico from a position of power until he is actually the POTUS, I've covered this already, yet you keep insisting how will he do it? It's up to Trump how he plans to do it, but in case all else fails, he's got alternate methods of gaining the money and those are the methods that I used to show you how easily it would over the costs of the wall.

Yeah I am.
It's just bizarre. Your guy (Not me. Your guy.) says over and over again that Mexico is gonna pay for the wall, and yet you insist that bringing up that fact is irrelevant and meaningless and he actually will do something else or anything else or whatever. Bizarre.

(10-04-2016, 05:45 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: That is not a fact, if it is, they why does more than double come from Canada and South America than Mexico? 40% + 80% + 80% is not 100%.

You do know I meant all Mexican immigrants, not all immigrants. That's just diversion on an irrelevant technicality.
So, yes, up to 50% of all illegal Mexican immigration takes place as described, by getting a visa and illegally staying. This is from Wikipedia and I linked to it. It's all over the place with various estimates. But it doesn't matter if it's 30% or 50% right now. It's a way for illegal immigration that only gains popularity if there's a wall. Which you claimed will reduce Mexican immigration by 95%. End of story.

(10-04-2016, 05:45 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: To fix that? I would suggest that there be a better system in place on both border for tracking passports that scan out/in. So who is denying reality? People come in via air, possibly leave in the time frame, but data is not reported properly via airlines/border patrols etc, so it ends up as an overstay.

That is denying reality. It's not the tracking that creates phantom overstays, but there are actual people staying and it's a very common way to get into the country illegally. Tracking doesn't really address that. Even if you know Rodriguez hasn't left the country, what can you do? He doesn't have a chip.

(10-04-2016, 05:45 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Putin words in my mouth now?

Was that intentional? If so, great stuff. If not - still great stuff.

(10-04-2016, 05:45 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: If you are not a US Citizen, you do not need to be using US Taxpayer money to fund your schooling. That is reserved for children of US taxpayers. Easy to tell people what to do with money when it's not yours hunh? From this point in time going forward, can you send me 10% of your annual earnings weekly, since you apparently like sharing with foreigners.

That is just unnecessary.
I can't send you anything for I too have to pay my taxes which we use for our own purposes, and yes that includes our own immigration situation. You might have heard, we deal with immigration too and actually take Syrian refugees in. And yes, there are expenses included with that.  
And I too know that there are limits to that. But don't patronize me that way. That was uncalled for.

(10-04-2016, 05:45 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: There's no reason to believe most that want to come here want to work and build a better life for themselves, just do it the right way and there is no issue from me. Do it the wrong way, and we have a problem, cause that tells me you aren't respecting the laws of the host country.

As I said, I respect that side of the argument.

(10-04-2016, 05:45 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Cool to the first part.
Economy isn't strong enough to keep the current trends going either. It is going down the drain, there's not enough going to the places where it's needed the most. It's being wasted on government departments that are duplicated in each state and at a federal level, there's waste all around. No one wants to step up and trim the fat. Hillary certainly doesn't, she wants to spend more and more and more, that means, I'll pay more and more and more cause she won't tax the elite anymore than Trump would. That's a area where I would consider you as highly uninformed.

For 5 years straight now, we have paid out over $100B in improper purchases.

Sure, not everything is pink and wonderful. I do know that.
Still. Data from 2015.
Ecomomic growth 2.4% (from 1.6 in 2011)
Unemployment rate 5.3% (from 8.9 in 2011)
GDP 17,947 bn (from 15.518 bn in 2011)
Inflation 0,7 (from 3,1 in 2011)
Sixth highest per capita GDP
...

all these numbers do not suggest economy is "going down the drain".
What makes you think so?

[tigerseye]

20 Trillion Dollars?

[fredtoast]

(10-05-2016, 12:54 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Since I wasn't clear the first time, maybe this time it will sink in.
We are not setup to track people leaving the country like we are for people entering the country.

If they leave via land, we have a very hard time actually getting accurate data from both Mexico and Canada borders. The exits need better service so we can get more accurate info.

Maybe this will sink in


A wall will not help us track people who enter legally and do not leave.  Since that is how a large majority of illegal immigrants get here a wall will not fix the problem.


This is a direct quote from the article YOU posted....Canada and Mexico have relatively high proportions of travelers who are admitted to the United States at land POEs. Unlike all other countries, over 95 percent of travelers from Canada or Mexico enter the United States by land.  That is why it only shows a  hundred thousand or so overstaying there legal visit while there are millions of illegals in the United States.