Right-wing populism.

[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.