Right-wing populism.

[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.