20% Tax on Items from Mexico to pay for wall...

[Chu Gai]

WRT favor ability ratings, I seem to recall at least one person in this thread who back in the day managed to accumulate an ungodly amount of red chicklets.

 

[lovinthehd]

Obama was a relatively popular president. At his worst, approval ratings hovered in the low 40s. He started with well above 60% approval and left with nearly 60%. This is not bad, much better than W although not as good as Bill Clinton. At the moment Trump has about a 40% approval rating, and it is only going to trend downward. One winner in all of this is W Bush, since he knows he will no longer be the benchmark for poor leadership.

Yeah W doesn't look so bad any more compared to the current group. His speeches are more coherent, too.

OK... I thinking... trying to remember. Sorry, but I can't seem to remember any of the networks saying things like that. I can't remember the "protests" or riots or destruction either. The only thing I remember is how the networks did seem to seek out a few kooks who talked like that, and attribute their philosophy to everyone who didn't support B-HO. After all, if you didn't agree with every word he said, you had to be racist. Right? And sexist if you disagreed with Hillary.

It was not just Hillary who branded any conflicting opinion as "deplorable". The liberal machine has been doing it for years, while claiming to be so accepting and inclusive. And I'll say they did a magnificent job! They clearly convinced A LOT of people that anyone who doesn't agree with them is worse than wrong... they're evil and deplorable. That is what so many people voted against.

Do you really believe half the people in this country hate a whole race of people? Or a religion? Or a gender? Really?


On the contrary, I applaud his current actions. But then again, I'm a kook. An outlier. So don't you worry about people like me at the polls next time. There are only a few like me.

FWIW I hear most of the stupid remarks pointed at the "liberals" from a variety of "conservatives"....just not on tv. Does it go the other way? Sure. Is this sort of thing promoted by media for entertainment and revenue purposes? Sure.

Yes, I can believe half the country dislikes a race, I grew up in the US. One of my grandparents' favorite things well into the 70s and 80s (before they passed) was a town my grandmother grew up in (Taft, California) that had a sign at the city limits before then to the effect of if your skin is brown and if the sun be down you better be out of town (and the wording isn't exact but close). They would have been Trump supporters I guarantee. That sign was up for quite a while, into the 50s for sure, probably 60s. It wasn't very long ago blacks couldn't sit on a bus or in a store or stay at a hotel either....or even play in professional sports.

 

[Ponzio]

Why is Trump being slammed for his stance on national security and immigration when Bill Clinton said this?

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351026/clinton-1995-immigration-sotu

Tone, substance; Obama actually deported more illegals and extended the current "wall" more than any other previous administrations, including Slick Willie ... where was the substance (proof) that it was "out of control" as compared to then or now for that matter?

Mexican migrant workers have crossed the current border to California, Texas, AZ, et all for almost as long as the USA has existed but Republicans decided to make it an "issue" where there was none. I've always believed that if u wanted to put a large dent on further illegal immigration, all u had to do was start imposing large fines ($10K per worker) to anyone who employed them, be it the large agribusiness corporations (Armour, etc.) to our farmers, lawn service, construction, etc. but that would alienate their constituents, so they pretend it's the oppositions fault at every election. it's a broken record that lazy Americans don't want to fix. look no further than Alabama's ... not exactly a bastion of liberal/progressive thought ... attempt to "stem" the tide a few years back when the state decreed that anyone applying for a job had to provide proof of residency (license, green card). it worked so successfully that within 6 months large landowning farmers & agribusiness corp.'s and construction companies lobbied, again successfully, to rescind the law.

again it bears repeating, we are creating problems where there are none. that's called stupidity i believe.

 

[shadyJ]

Tone, substance; Obama actually deported more illegals and extended the current "wall" more than any other previous administrations, including Slick Willie ... where was the substance (proof) that it was "out of control" as compared to then or now for that matter?

Mexican migrant workers have crossed the current border to California, Texas, AZ, et all for almost as long as the USA has existed but Republicans decided to make it an "issue" where there was none. I've always believed that if u wanted to put a large dent on further illegal immigration, all u had to do was start imposing large fines ($10K per worker) to anyone who employed them, be it the large agribusiness corporations (Armour, etc.) to our farmers, lawn service, construction, etc. but that would alienate their constituents, so they pretend it's the oppositions fault at every election. it's a broken record that lazy Americans don't want to fix. look no further than Alabama's ... not exactly a bastion of liberal/progressive thought ... attempt to "stem" the tide a few years back when the state decreed that anyone applying for a job had to provide proof of residency (license, green card). it worked so successfully that within 6 months large landowning farmers & agribusiness corp.'s and construction companies lobbied, again successfully, to rescind the law.

again it bears repeating, we are creating problems where there are none. that's called stupidity i believe.

The funny thing is, immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than normal. If we really wanted to reduce crime, the thing to do is deport natural born citizens.

 

[shadyJ]

OK... I thinking... trying to remember. Sorry, but I can't seem to remember any of the networks saying things like that.

No networks, but large swaths of conservative media.

I can't remember the "protests" or riots or destruction either.

The Bundy Ranch stand-off? The occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge?

Do you really believe half the people in this country hate a whole race of people? Or a religion? Or a gender? Really?

I think a hefty chunk of Trump's core supporters are deeply racist, and many of the people who voted for him are, at the very least, indifferent to racism. Only 26% of eligible voters actually cast their ballots for Trump, so I don't think his actions reflect the will of an entire half the American people. His current approval ratings certainly reflect this.

On the contrary, I applaud his current actions.

You think a president should spend half his time in office fretting over how the media is reporting the status of his popularity?

 

[mtrycrafts]

... Only 26% of eligible voters actually cast their ballots for Trump, so I don't think his actions reflect the will of an entire half the American people. His current approval ratings certainly reflect this.

...

Yep, that is telling. He should also think about the 6 million who also didn't vote for him but the other two candidates. That is 9 million in total, no?

 

[Chu Gai]

The funny thing is, immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than normal. If we really wanted to reduce crime, the thing to do is deport natural born citizens.

The issue is more complicated and less clear for illegal aliens or as some are likely to call them, undocumented migrants,

 

[Chu Gai]

Yep, that is telling. He should also think about the 6 million who also didn't vote for him but the other two candidates. That is 9 million in total, no?

I had read that one of Clinton's concerns, apart from running that slick CGI, was the fear that she would win the electoral vote but lose the popular vote. So, what to do? She raised a fair amount of money so a portion of it was diverted to be spent in certain states where it was an absolute given that she was going to win. It was a given that even with spending nothing, she'd carry NY and California. So considerable amounts were spent there to gin up the vote thereby ensuring she would carry the popular vote.

 

[Chu Gai]

No networks, but large swaths of conservative media.

Similar swaths exist for the other side not to mention TV, newspapers, and educational institutions.

The Bundy Ranch stand-off? The occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge?

Compare that to the organized leftist demonstrations.

I think a hefty chunk of Trump's core supporters are deeply racist, and many of the people who voted for him are, at the very least, indifferent to racism. Only 26% of eligible voters actually cast their ballots for Trump, so I don't think his actions reflect the will of an entire half the American people. His current approval ratings certainly reflect this.

Some of those core supporters also put Obama over the top. UConn is having Black only living quarters. Racist? Barnard wants to change the faculty makeup and make it less white. Racist? You have no problem saying 26% don't reflect half of the American people but then elsewhere you cite a NYT article that looks at a thousand or so stats and extrapolate that.

You think a president should spend half his time in office fretting over how the media is reporting the status of his popularity?

Hardly half. As to why he does it, one can only guess. Keep in mind Trump ran against a pretty big field to get the nomination. He ran even against his own party. He ran against over a hundred newspapers. He ran against the liberal and left wing press. He ran against the endorsements of a popular president and First Lady for Hillary. He ran against a person who'd spent years putting together ad formidable ground game. He ran against the entertainment industry. He won. He may know more than we think about what it is that he does.

 

[shadyJ]

Some of those core supporters also put Obama over the top. UConn is having Black only living quarters. Racist? Barnard wants to change the faculty makeup and make it less white. Racist? You have no problem saying 26% don't reflect half of the American people but then elsewhere you cite a NYT article that looks at a thousand or so stats and extrapolate that.

I am not sure what your point here is. 26% of a country is not the majority. You don't think extrapolating from statistics can lead to a valid conclusion? What?

Hardly half. As to why he does it, one can only guess. Keep in mind Trump ran against a pretty big field to get the nomination. He ran even against his own party. He ran against over a hundred newspapers. He ran against the liberal and left wing press. He ran against the endorsements of a popular president and First Lady for Hillary. He ran against a person who'd spent years putting together ad formidable ground game. He ran against the entertainment industry. He won. He may know more than we think about what it is that he does.

You are giving Trump way more credit than he deserves. Hillary was not a very strong opponent any way you slice it. You can give a candidate all the money in the world, but there is only so much appeal you can buy for a candidate. The turnout for the 2016 election was comparatively abysmal. Trump was a crap candidate too, and he only won by a few select counties in a few select swing states. He is not playing 10 moves ahead of any of his opponents. You are confusing luck for strategy. There were exterior forces that ran interference for him, like Russian hackers and Comey's last minute 'suspicious email' surprise announcement which tipped the scales in his favor. If you want to say that the entertainment industry gravitates toward Democratic politics and that they sometimes collude, you would have a point. If you want to say that Democratic politics are too deeply entrenched, bureaucratic, and oblivious, you might have a point. But don't let that blind you to Trump's outright incompetence.

 

[highfigh]

Mexican migrant workers have crossed the current border to California, Texas, AZ, et all for almost as long as the USA has existed but Republicans decided to make it an "issue" where there was none. I've always believed that if u wanted to put a large dent on further illegal immigration, all u had to do was start imposing large fines ($10K per worker) to anyone who employed them, be it the large agribusiness corporations (Armour, etc.) to our farmers, lawn service, construction, etc. but that would alienate their constituents, so they pretend it's the oppositions fault at every election. it's a broken record that lazy Americans don't want to fix. look no further than Alabama's ... not exactly a bastion of liberal/progressive thought ... attempt to "stem" the tide a few years back when the state decreed that anyone applying for a job had to provide proof of residency (license, green card). it worked so successfully that within 6 months large landowning farmers & agribusiness corp.'s and construction companies lobbied, again successfully, to rescind the law.

again it bears repeating, we are creating problems where there are none. that's called stupidity i believe.

And when did the Republicans make it an issue?

California as around 30K illegal Mexicans in their prisons- is that not a problem? Two more Mexicans were found in the trunk of a car crossing the border two days ago- is that not a problem, knowing that it's far from an isolated incident? You know all of those gangs in the US? Are you familiar with MS13, La Familia, Mexican Mafia, Norteños and Sureños? Ties to the drug cartels aren't a problem? The increased flow of heroin from Mexico isn't a problem? The estimated $28Billion sent to people in Mexico in 2014 (just an example- the estimate for all money sent out is over $120B), tax-free isn't a problem? I keep hearing that they're good for our economy, but $28B leaving, which is far less than the amount that had been leaving, may never come back- how does that help the US economy?

Most of the Cocaine coming into the US is from Peru, which is also the place where most US currency is counterfeited.

If the Republicans have gotten it wrong, here's a link from CNN-

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/politics/immigrants-crime/

 

[highfigh]

As to my original post, answering highfigh, is it success or was he born too rich to fail? His track record for governing is what exactly? Trump University?

From what I have read, he received $1M from his father and I don't know enough about TrumpU to comment- obviously looks like a bad deal.

Having a million dollars is far from "too rich to fail". Many have failed after having far more.

 

[highfigh]

No, the thing that made Obama's popularity rise at the end of his second term was being confronted by the election process and knowing we were going to get stuck with either Trump or Hilliary!

If the polls asked for opinions on "Obama, or Hillary/Trump?", I can see why Obama's popularity rose but if they were strictly asking about what he was doing at the end of his term, I don't know why the increase occurred.

 

[highfigh]

In a word, implementation.

But you can also look at the emotion behind it. Trump claimed that Mexico is sending all of their rapists and worst criminals/murders here, as if illegal immigration was part of an evil plot being managed by Mexico. The main basis of this message was fear!
Clinton's message was an appeal to our sense of fairness.

However, I do believe when matters, just not the biggest factor.

Add the cost of incarceration, the money sent out of the country, the cost to crime victims, the cost of medical care with no money to pay for it, the heroin and other drugs coming in, human trafficking, human smuggling into the US, the corruption in the Mexican government, military & Law Enforcement- at what point would you call it a problem?

 

[Rickster71]

In a word, implementation.

But you can also look at the emotion behind it. Trump claimed that Mexico is sending all of their rapists and worst criminals/murders here, as if illegal immigration was part of an evil plot being managed by Mexico. The main basis of this message was fear!

Castro did exactly that during the Cuban Boat Lift 1980:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/criminals-in-exodus-from-cuba-us-fears-castro-emptying-his-jails-into-florida-1386288.html
"Officials in Washington say they have learned from sources in Havana that, the releases from Cuban prisons began last weekend. President Bill Clinton is acutely conscious of the effectiveness of the Cuban tactic of sending killers and thieves along with genuine refugees: in 1980 his own political career was almost ended when 18,000 Cuban boat people, mostly former prisoners, rioted at a US military base, Fort Chafee in Arkansas."
Cuba’s solution becomes the U.S.’s problem
Moreover, Castro wanted to create problems for the U.S. while solving problems in Cuba. He had many of the street crime and even murder prisoners in jails as well as some political prisoners and the patients in mental hospitals and asylums transported to Mariel. He forced the Cuban-Americans to take several of his problem cases for each relative he allowed them to take.

As we realized Cubans were being landed up and down the Florida Keys as well as in Miami by the thousands, most were not relatives, and worse many were common criminals or insane, we began to see we were facing an invasion of a type never envisioned in our worst nightmare. Of course none of these Cubans newly arriving in the U.S. had visas; most had no documents, and there was no way to figure out who most really were. Mixed in were the mothers, fathers, aunts, and children of the Cuban exiles, but many of them also had no documents.

 

[Rickster71]

Trump was a crap candidate too, and he only won by a few select counties in a few select swing states.

Interesting map; not sure where it shows it agrees with you:
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37889032

There were exterior forces that ran interference for him, like Russian hackers

If you would be so kind as to help the less intelligent (such as me)

How did the Russians interfere, since Hillary won the popular vote?
How did the Russians influence Trump to beat 16 opponents in the Primary?
Yet they influenced the DNC to cheat and rig their primary to beat only one man, Bernie Sanders?
How did Russians influence Hillary to have an illegal server in her house... and then get FBI to investigate in the first place?

Edit: typo

 

[Chu Gai]

I am not sure what your point here is. 26% of a country is not the majority. You don't think extrapolating from statistics can lead to a valid conclusion? What?

The voter participation rate has always been low. So what is the point of 26%? What president in recent history has gotten over 50%? These are the cards that are dealt.
I think your umbrage over the statistics is misguided and simplistic. For example how do we define crime? Is taking the information from one state applicable to all states? How robust was the study? So, rather than reading an article in the NYT which abstracts what they want to see in print and shape the reader's perception, so, instead, read the article at the Cato Institute. There are links there too. Further, of you've ever read Freakonomics, you'll see topics like this are quite involved. Just using the word statistics implies a certain obviousness thT may not be there.

You are giving Trump way more credit than he deserves. Hillary was not a very strong opponent any way you slice it. You can give a candidate all the money in the world, but there is only so much appeal you can buy for a candidate. The turnout for the 2016 election was comparatively abysmal. Trump was a crap candidate too, and he only won by a few select counties in a few select swing states. He is not playing 10 moves ahead of any of his opponents. You are confusing luck for strategy. There were exterior forces that ran interference for him, like Russian hackers and Comey's last minute 'suspicious email' surprise announcement which tipped the scales in his favor. If you want to say that the entertainment industry gravitates toward Democratic politics and that they sometimes collude, you would have a point. If you want to say that Democratic politics are too deeply entrenched, bureaucratic, and oblivious, you might have a point. But don't let that blind you to Trump's outright incompetence.

I think Trump ran an effective campaign to in both the primary and presidency. As to Hillary being a weak candidate you'd never have guessed it. She had enormous backing. Luck? Quite a run. We will see if he's incompetent.

 

[lovinthehd]

From what I have read, he received $1M from his father and I don't know enough about TrumpU to comment- obviously looks like a bad deal.

Having a million dollars is far from "too rich to fail". Many have failed after having far more.

It was more like a $40 to $200million fortune he inherited, and started with large cash infusions from dad while alive...from what I have read. I'd imagine in NY real estate he could have done very well without doing much, too (or any large city's real estate in the last 30 years pretty much if you're a player). Trump U he was accused of basically bilking the students in a real estate seminar type setting and had to settle three lawsuits out of court for $25million rather than going to trial during his presidency (and be deposed while president elect after the election). He still has other lawsuits pending against him, too. Hard to really know what he even declared to the government on his tax returns since he didn't release any and his business is not a public corporation (his company was his parent's real estate company renamed to the Trump Organization IIRC). Donald claimed to be worth $10b but seems its less than $4b...maybe, balance sheets can be deceiving. He still needs and apparently has huge bank loans, wonder if he'll get some payback from Russian banks after he enables Putin to cash in on oil with ol' Rex. We'll see.....

 

[KEW]

Add the cost of incarceration, the money sent out of the country, the cost to crime victims, the cost of medical care with no money to pay for it, the heroin and other drugs coming in, human trafficking, human smuggling into the US, the corruption in the Mexican government, military & Law Enforcement- at what point would you call it a problem?

Ahh, but you are sounding like Bill Clinton; coming from a place of fairness, not the fear behind Trump's speeches about immigration.

If I can use myself as an example, I have commented in this thread that I can agree to some sort of limits at how openly two dramatically diverse economies interact. The same is true of people.
However, IMHO this needs to be implemented in a stable predictable way and it needs to be tempered with wisdom and compassion. Stranding people at airports who have been on a 2 year trek is a ridiculous and needless source of drama for a lot of people and companies. Stranding Green Card holders who visited home over Christmas but are well involved in careers here does more harm than good.

Had he phased in well-advised controls in an intelligent manner based on sound information that would be seen as reasonable by the common man, he could have gained popularity with the majority of the population.
Instead he is performing knee-jerk actions without consulting the expertise which is at his command.

He is used to the apprentice boss role - being a big boss without accountability (to legislative branch, to judicial branch, or to the people of the country) and used to a set of negotiation tactics tuned to real estate deals.
His behavior with Australia was just embarrassing. If he did not like an agreement Obama made re: refugees, he should have moved to a different topic instead of pitching a tantrum and hanging up on one of our closest allies. Later he could consulted his advisers what recourse he has before proceeding.

I know I sound like a broken record, but it is a fundamental observation (IMHO) that Trump does not provide stability while stability is one of the two most important functions of government for any developed nation to thrive.

 

[KEW]

Castro did exactly that during the Cuban Boat Lift 1980:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/criminals-in-exodus-from-cuba-us-fears-castro-emptying-his-jails-into-florida-1386288.html
"Officials in Washington say they have learned from sources in Havana that, the releases from Cuban prisons began last weekend. President Bill Clinton is acutely conscious of the effectiveness of the Cuban tactic of sending killers and thieves along with genuine refugees: in 1980 his own political career was almost ended when 18,000 Cuban boat people, mostly former prisoners, rioted at a US military base, Fort Chafee in Arkansas."
Cuba’s solution becomes the U.S.’s problem
Moreover, Castro wanted to create problems for the U.S. while solving problems in Cuba. He had many of the street crime and even murder prisoners in jails as well as some political prisoners and the patients in mental hospitals and asylums transported to Mariel. He forced the Cuban-Americans to take several of his problem cases for each relative he allowed them to take.

As we realized Cubans were being landed up and down the Florida Keys as well as in Miami by the thousands, most were not relatives, and worse many were common criminals or insane, we began to see we were facing an invasion of a type never envisioned in our worst nightmare. Of course none of these Cubans newly arriving in the U.S. had visas; most had no documents, and there was no way to figure out who most really were. Mixed in were the mothers, fathers, aunts, and children of the Cuban exiles, but many of them also had no documents.

What is your point?
How is that relevant to Mexico or this conversation?
If Trump had fact behind him, there would not be much debate!