Trump

[natsb88]

I'm all for overhauling the GOP, but I don't think Trump is the right direction. The only place where I see his current policy as an improvement is that he is campaigning on a less interventionist foreign policy than anybody else in the GOP field (except Rand Paul). The problem is that I don't trust Trump to hold to it for a second, because he's spent the last 15 years running his mouth off about bombing middle eastern countries to take their oil

On guns, on healthcare, on freedom of speech, on freedom of religion, on property rights, on privacy rights, on corporatism, on the war on drugs, on tax policy, on trade policy, on criminal justice reform, on military spending, on entitlement spending, and just about everywhere else, I see Trump moving the party in the wrong direction. Bigger government, more enforcement, more taxpayer-funded services, less distinction between the two parties. And the improved campaign rhetoric re: foreign policy isn't anywhere near enough to offset all of this other garbage.

Maybe both parties will completely implode over the next three months. That would be entertaining

[Treetop]

We are watching different trumps. He wants to take the party away from big government more then any republican since Ive been watching. Cutting regulations and spending. Hes mentioned supporting the assault weapons ban in the past but flipped on it and has been firm ever since, even if he did it for political reasons. Would have to agree on healthcare. He wants religious groups to be able to speak their mind politically citing the first amendment so more religious freedom. It isnt against religious freedom to block immigration from nations that 20-30% of the immigrants openly admit they want to hurt us. He is the same as the bulk of republicans and democrats on privacy, but not moving it further in the wrong direction, hes just not taking it in a better one as rand paul might. Not sure why you say this about corporatism, his stance on trade deals shows he is eons better for the corporatism issue then even gary johnson who is A-ok with such trade deals, and gives meaningless speeches otherwise with no substance. He wants to lower taxes which I think is great not sure why you think thats the wrong direction. Hes definitely wrong on the war on drugs, but so is most of the dems an reps as well. He wants less entitlement spending or rather make them actually be funded, so I could see why some would say that is worse then the right but even though Im not a fan of this either most of the country is. No idea how youd say he wants bigger government then the rest of republicans, I guess because he wants social programs that work? In other ways he wants smaller government, less red tape and sorry but the social programs arent going away, look at the stances of the generations below us. He ants them to actually work.

I see a bigger difference between the two then ever before. Dems AND reps have long both been imperialistic globalist building nonsense and he wants to take us away from that and rebuild industry. This is the first time I saw ANY major difference outside of rhetoric from the two main parties. This is the first time since I could vote that a major party wasnt offering two sides of the same imo failed mindset that is bleeding ut our middle class. We have a chance at a future now, instead of only oppression as we bleed ourselves out at the altar of globalism and no borders.

[johnbrickner]

I'm all for overhauling the GOP, . . . Maybe both parties will completely implode over the next three months. That would be entertaining

I'm all for overhauling the entire system. Frankly, I think a proportional system of representation would be better. At least I'd feel proportionately represented instead of not at all.

Two party system implosion entertaining, you get a from me on that one. And God bless them, they are doing it on their own without outside help or interference. But far more than entertaining is the answer the party in power (either one) gives: Because it's necessary.

[Treetop]

60% do not feel supported by either party atm. Highest ever. (I believe) Im not sure we will end the two party paradigm soon though, but one or the other could easily fail soon by my take on things.

[natsb88]

We are watching different trumps.

We're watching the same Trump, but I'm not buying many of his current positions which contradict his last several decades of activity and stances.

He wants to take the party away from big government more then any republican since Ive been watching. Cutting regulations and spending.

He says that, but what regulations and what spending? He offers no specifics, just empty rhetoric. Every GOP candidate I've watched in every debate in the last three cycles has talked about cutting regulations and cutting spending.

Hes mentioned supporting the assault weapons ban in the past but flipped on it and has been firm ever since, even if he did it for political reasons.

If "by the past" you mean just over a year ago, when he mentioned an assault weapons ban on his original campaign website. He flipped and has been firm, for all of twelve months of campaigning. He called for banning all semi-automatic weapons in his book in 2000. He called for longer waiting periods and other measures a few years ago. Trump, like other politicians, knows HE will always have armed guards to protect him no matter what the laws are, so his position is whatever is most politically advantageous at the moment.

Would have to agree on healthcare.

That's another one that he has done a 180 on since he started running. His original campaign website absolutely called for a single-payer healthcare system. Now he has adopted the platform of reform and deregulation to some extent. Again a paper-thin disguise.

He wants religious groups to be able to speak their mind politically citing the first amendment so more religious freedom. It isnt against religious freedom to block immigration from nations that 20-30% of the immigrants openly admit they want to hurt us.

He originally talked about banning Muslims from coming into the country, period. His staffers massaged that into banning certain high-risk categories (single Muslim men of certain ages) from specific countries. There's a fine line to walk here. Trump is not good at nuance.

He is the same as the bulk of republicans and democrats on privacy, but not moving it further in the wrong direction, hes just not taking it in a better one as rand paul might.

Trump demanded that Apple build a backdoor for the FBI. He supports the Patriot Act and the NSA. He says the government should have the ability to censor and shut down the internet. He suggested that Edward Snowden should be executed. The other candidates (except Rand) did not have particularly good stances on privacy, but Trump is at the extreme on all of them.

Not sure why you say this about corporatism, his stance on trade deals shows he is eons better for the corporatism issue then even gary johnson who is A-ok with such trade deals, and gives meaningless speeches otherwise with no substance.

Because Trump is a corporatist and has been leveraging big government to the advantage of his businesses for 40+ years. TPP is one area I don't agree with Johnson on, but I do think the TPP gets blown out of proportion. Trump's stance on trade is to put huge tariffs on imports from China, making everything more expensive. I don't like that so much stuff is made in China, but his trade policy would crush the lower and middle class, who would be paying 50% - 100% more for consumables. Not to mention it's decidedly anti-free-market. Trump supported TARP and the bank bailouts (of course he did, he's received his own bailouts). Trump now supports a big hike in the federal minimum wage, which he opposed at the beginning (he wants $10 where Hillary wants $12). His campaign has also started to make proposals to fix the non-existent "wage gap" to look more like Hillary.

He wants to lower taxes which I think is great not sure why you think thats the wrong direction.

His tax proposal was to vastly increase the number of people paying $0 in taxes at the bottom end, and jack taxes way up on the wealthy. He referred to his own tax policy as "more progressive." That may also have been tweaked since the early debates.

I see a bigger difference between the two then ever before. Dems AND reps have long both been imperialistic globalist building nonsense and he wants to take us away from that and rebuild industry. This is the first time I saw ANY major difference outside of rhetoric from the two main parties. This is the first time since I could vote that a major party wasnt offering two sides of the same imo failed mindset that is bleeding ut our middle class. We have a chance at a future now, instead of only oppression as we bleed ourselves out at the altar of globalism and no borders.

Nah, I see the most polarizing characters with the least substantive policy differences in my lifetime. Take away immigration (where Trump is making outlandish promises he knows he can't keep), free college (where Hillary is making outlandish promises she knows she can't keep), and foreign policy (where Trump currently sounds better but has a past much closer to Hillary's current stance), and there isn't all that much different. Trump is moving the GOP closer to the dems. If he manages to beat Hillary (I still doubt it will happen), we'll have 4-8 years of the conservative party getting less and less conservative.

60% do not feel supported by either party atm. Highest ever. (I believe) Im not sure we will end the two party paradigm soon though, but one or the other could easily fail soon by my take on things.

I believe it. I read that only 9% of eligible voters picked Trump and Hillary in the primaries. 91% of eligible voters didn't vote or wanted somebody else. Pretty sad state of affairs.

[68Camaro]

Just the opposite. Nearly a record turnout for a primary.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... 08-record/

[Treetop]

I dont buy any of the issues he changed his stance of the last few decades either, besides guns, I expect he knows he cant get that and retain any respect as a republican. He is right with tariffs though. Its not perfect but there is no other way. TPP is absolutely horrible though, wed be tied to decisions of courts outside of the US legally for the first time ever. You can either lower taxes, or whatever else with the tariff money. If we continue to compete directly with slaves we will be much better off then having to pay more for slave made goods. Eventually the third world and the first will meet somewhere in the middle of the wealth spectrum. Heck this would already be drastically more evident if we werent living in large part on unsustainable debt. Once we cant do this anymore our quality of life nationwide will drop considerably. Compete with slave for production at that point? pffft. Tariffs offer the only real way I know of to stem this tide to a degree. I mean Im a homesteader, we could have more people go back to such lifestyles and do okay perhaps but nothing close to currently. I cant even fathom how some think we can sustain this from any angle let alone as we bleed out jobs and maintain the current solely with debt. The free market in a global context puts us on a path to ruin. Heck the free market folks who started the nation knew this and used tariffs in this exact context.

His plans on immigration I expect will make some mad, hes the deal guy. You have to give something often to give what you want. So I expect only criminals will be sent home, the rest staying, and a tax on money sent back to mexico will pay for the wall. Thats my guess. In either case I expect he stop an additional influx that was unchecked. A few ways hes worded things in speeches I think that is the goal rather then making ll leave as hes said. Even if we did send them all home though, not nearly as hard as some pretend when you can cancel their drivers licenses, and target employers etc rather handily. Most will go home on their own. It wont cost 10s of thousands each, I expect some globalist dork said that and everyone assumed it was true without thinking.

It blows my mind anyone thinks this is the least substantive policy differences in the last few cycles. They have paths entirely counter to eachother. Trumps being a turning away from the same policies driving us to ruin, over spending, unchecked immigration, and trade deals that force us to compete with slaves. Sure tariffs arent perfect but the alternative is far worse, assuming you want a future in this country. Those three things have been some of the corner stones that showed some of us that the dems and reps were building the same future. Heck the UN constantly makes reports about how to build the world they want those are the exact things top on their agenda. As well as a global common core school curriculum. Another thing trump wants to take local. We are definitely looking at different trumps.

[Treetop]

Yeah for a primary it had a solid turnout. Now if only we could get all those who wont vote into the polling booths, we might see some real change. But trump is the first in my life with a chance to win who wants to back us off the globalist precipice a bit, I can ignore some of his other stances and traits.

[natsb88]

I don't particularly dislike Trump's plans for immigration, I just find them laughable. It's hilarious to me that people genuinely believe Trump will get a wall built, let alone get Mexico to pay for it. George Bush was going to fix the education system and keep us out of foreign conflicts. Obama was going to close Guantanamo and fix the healthcare system. Hillary is going to end gun violence and fix the economy so that Americans get free healthcare, a mandatory six weeks paid leave, and can support a family just by working at McDonalds. Trump is going to build a wall, get Mexico to pay for it, and make American great again. When will people recognize empty campaign promises as empty campaign promises?

At most Trump's grand immigration reform (if he manages to get elected) will boil down to a marginal increase in border patrol and a higher rate of deporting illegal immigrants who get arrested for other crimes. He could work border patrol funding through congress and he could issue an executive order to demand that immigration laws already on the books be better enforced. That's about it. Illegals will not be kicked out en masse. Americans will not get jobs back from illegals (Americans are too lazy and entitled to work most of those jobs anyway...I see it right here in my tiny town several thousand miles from the border). There won't be a wall and Mexico certainly won't pay for it.

The founders used tariffs but did not have an income tax. If we were talking about completely replacing the federal income tax with tariffs, there might be something there. But there is a 0% chance of that happening. This would just be more taxes on top of existing taxes. Who do you think pays for the tariffs? The consumer here in the US. Taxes/fees/tariffs always get passed on to the final price of the item. It doesn't come out of China's pocket. It comes out of our pockets. High enough tariffs *might* make some US manufacturing more competitive with China, but then Trump wants to increase the minimum wage and people will need more than that anyway to afford the more expensive goods, so nevermind. Tariffs take more money out of the consumer's pocket and hand it to the government. That's it. I work with manufactures that have a lot of things done in China. The cost has doubled in the last 10 years and is continuing to climb. The quality of life is improving in China and wages are going up. That will continue on its own without funneling more US consumer money to the US government. China will be cheaper for a long time yet, but decreasingly so. If we want to compete in manufacturing in the meantime, we need to reduce corporate taxes, reduce payroll taxes, eliminate the employer healthcare mandate, reduce regulatory burdens, and utilize cheap domestic energy instead of exporting our coal and gas and subsidizing expensive green energy. But that's not what Trump likes to talk about. He wants tariffs

[Treetop]

You cant make mexico pay for a wall, but you can easily get people from mexico to pay for it taxing the massive amount of funds they send back to mexico. Also perhaps taxes on a guest worker program which might arguably be mexico and others paying. He supports guest workers. I disagree, wall or not I expect if elected and he gets his way immigration will be close to zero from mexico without going through legal channels.

You touch on something interesting though, I do expect many more americans will end up with those jobs "americans wont do". This is a failed mindset that wont be sustained longterm anyway. Those arent the only jobs they are taking though, they have moved into some types of skilled fields as well.

Of course I know who pays for tariffs, but I also disagree that it wouldnt promote more local production. Also you missed out on a few trump speeches apparently. He wants taxes cut at several levels and regulations as well. He also heavily supports local cheap energy, coal etc. He has stressed all those things for months. We will know more details in about a week or so when he lays out his economic plan. He mentions most of these much more often then he has tariffs. Ive listened to about 40-50 of his speeches now.

Speaking of empty campaign promises, that is one thing I like about trump. Due to how he has framed his campaign his feet will be held to the fire much more then most politicians. I honestly expect him to try to do what he has said. I expect alot of vetoes. I also expect him to bypass congress and bring plans right to the populace to garner support so we might force congress ourselves. Take a ron paul figure for instance, I voted for him (gary johnson fits this also who has also gotten my vote in the past) I wouldnt have expected nearly as much out of either of those two as I would trump because trump doesnt care if he looses face, especially once he was president. Id expect him to be much more aggressive at getting his way, in mostly good ways. There is no way in the world if trump wins 4 years that hed get 8 if he wasnt aggressive in that way. He seems to know that. He wants to leave a legacy in his wake.

Might as well kiss the bill of rights goodbye though if hillary wins.

[Treetop]

Was up late, I had never actually heard trumps stance on drugs, Im curious your stance on it natsb? I had assumed you had a more libertarian view on it. Trump has long supported legalizing and regulating all drugs. This is one of the issues he recently flipflopped on and now says he supports medical marijuana and states legalizing pot at the state level. His early stance though was right imo, a few western nations do this with better results. Lower usage, less crime, lots of money saved. So if you dont want to believe the stances he took trying to get the republican nomination then he has a libertarian take on it.

I know many here wouldnt support his original or current stance on it, but he was right. The stats show it clearly. Lower usage and crime when legal as well as being a income source instead of a major expenditure. Just like with prohibition of alcohol.

LOL happened across some wild sites looking this up.

[natsb88]

You cant make mexico pay for a wall, but you can easily get people from mexico to pay for it taxing the massive amount of funds they send back to mexico.

What is the mechanism for this "income export tax?" We have lots of migrant workers here who buy money orders at the gas station and post office to send home, or mail cash. Is Trump going to open every letter to Mexico and confiscate a percentage of the funds? What about PPG and personal checks? How do you police those? This is another grand idea with no practical mechanism for implementation. It could only potentially be enforced against people who are in the system and have their income reported to the IRS (even problematic then). If anything, it would just be additional motivation to stay off the radar.

You touch on something interesting though, I do expect many more americans will end up with those jobs "americans wont do". This is a failed mindset that wont be sustained longterm anyway.

I strongly disagree. The cannery here tried years ago to get Americans to do the work. They even came up with a program that would allow people (primarily mothers) to work a short day shift in between dropping kids off for school and picking them up. Nobody wanted the job so they went back to bringing in migrant workers. It's hot, unskilled, boring work. I know a sizable contractor that tried to hire general laborers for a job a few summers ago, offered something like $12/hour to push a wheelbarrow around, and couldn't get anybody to do it. There are jobs available here (the gas station is always hiring, jobs come and go at the forge, numerous seasonal construction and farming jobs) that Americans have been conditioned to believe are beneath them. Why work a hard physical job for <$10/hour when you can stay unemployed and collect almost that much in government assistance? If Trump somehow managed to deport most illegal immigrants (he won't) agricultural labor costs would increase significantly, which translates to more expensive food at the grocery store.

Speaking of empty campaign promises, that is one thing I like about trump. Due to how he has framed his campaign his feet will be held to the fire much more then most politicians. I honestly expect him to try to do what he has said.

Trump's career for the last ten years has been in reality television. Playing a character, honing a persona, creating drama and spectacles. It's what he does. I do not find him at all genuine or trustworthy. I find him blatantly phony. He says whatever he needs to say to be the center of attention, with no actual conviction. He knows how to keep the media focused on him, how to run over everybody else not by providing better content but just by keeping the spotlight on himself. And it's working well for him.

Might as well kiss the bill of rights goodbye though if hillary wins.

Yeah yeah, you have to settle for this terrible candidate because the other one is even worse. Heard it all before. Same argument both parties have been making for decades.

Im curious your stance on it natsb? I had assumed you had a more libertarian view on it.

I believe the war on drugs is ineffective, gives rise to gang activity that accounts for more than half of gun violence in this country, that people own their own bodies and can do whatever they want with them so long as they don't expect taxpayers to pick up the medical bills. I believe that prohibition never works, that the war on drugs should be abandoned, that we should not have a quasi-military federal Drug Enforcement Agency, and that marijuana should be descheduled and deregulated at the federal level making it de facto legal (though individual states could regulate it).

Trump has long supported legalizing and regulating all drugs. This is one of the issues he recently flipflopped on and now says he supports medical marijuana and states legalizing pot at the state level. His early stance though was right imo, a few western nations do this with better results. Lower usage, less crime, lots of money saved. So if you dont want to believe the stances he took trying to get the republican nomination then he has a libertarian take on it.

So I am supposed to believe his current (brand new) stances on guns and healthcare and ignore his past very undesirable stances on those topics, but go back to his stance on the war on drugs from 25 years ago instead of his current water-downed politically correct medical-only stance, ignore his support for warrantless spying on US citizens and forcing private companies to create backdoors in encryption because all of the other awful politicians also support those, and believe his grandiose campaign promises despite history telling us they won't come true because he (the phony reality TV star) seems like a guy who will hold himself to a higher standard? That sounds like a lot of hoops to jump through to convince myself to vote for someone. See rationalization.

[Thogey]

Just curious nate, are you married?

[natsb88]

Just curious nate, are you married?

Nope

[johnbrickner]

While not on subject I apologize. While pertinent to current state of the empire, I post.

There are jobs available here (the gas station is always hiring, jobs come and go at the forge, numerous seasonal construction and farming jobs) that Americans have been conditioned to believe are beneath them.

When my son was doing his Eagle project (redoing a wood deck for a local teen center) for scouts, one of this troop members needed some extra assistance to learn how to clean the deck (I'm being nice on my choice of words here). So I showed him the proper way to scrub the deck and (this soon to be 10th grader) replied back to me "I'm sorry Mr. Brickner but, I was never taught how to be a professional Mexican". My reply back (with his father but 8 feet away busting a sweat on the project and other scouts surrounding us) was "Your effort on this Eagle project is worse than no effort at all. You can go home now". He copped an attitude, stayed, and put in slightly better effort.

[Thogey]

Just curious nate, are you married?

Nope

This I predicted. You have too much spirit and integrity to be married. Good for you!

[Thogey]

While not on subject I apologize. While pertinent to current state of the empire, I post.

There are jobs available here (the gas station is always hiring, jobs come and go at the forge, numerous seasonal construction and farming jobs) that Americans have been conditioned to believe are beneath them.

When my son was doing his Eagle project (redoing a wood deck for a local teen center) for scouts, one of this troop members needed some extra assistance to learn how to clean the deck (I'm being nice on my choice of words here). So I showed him the proper way to scrub the deck and (this soon to be 10th grader) replied back to me "I'm sorry Mr. Brickner but, I was never taught how to be a professional Mexican". My reply back (with his father but 8 feet away busting a sweat on the project and other scouts surrounding us) was "Your effort on this Eagle project is worse than no effort at all. You can go home now". He copped an attitude, stayed, and put in slightly better effort.

This would have really pissed me off. In the real world he would have been thrown off the job for not having the necessary skills to clean a deck. A skill which many Mexicans possess.
I don't want to derail the thread or write about myself but. I have worked side by side with many a Mexican. Lots of these guys are very professional. That kid had a major [shucks] attitude. A simple solution to the whole problem is "work or starve".

[natsb88]

While not on subject I apologize. While pertinent to current state of the empire, I post.

There are jobs available here (the gas station is always hiring, jobs come and go at the forge, numerous seasonal construction and farming jobs) that Americans have been conditioned to believe are beneath them.

When my son was doing his Eagle project (redoing a wood deck for a local teen center) for scouts, one of this troop members needed some extra assistance to learn how to clean the deck (I'm being nice on my choice of words here). So I showed him the proper way to scrub the deck and (this soon to be 10th grader) replied back to me "I'm sorry Mr. Brickner but, I was never taught how to be a professional Mexican". My reply back (with his father but 8 feet away busting a sweat on the project and other scouts surrounding us) was "Your effort on this Eagle project is worse than no effort at all. You can go home now". He copped an attitude, stayed, and put in slightly better effort.

This would have really pissed me off. In the real world he would have been thrown off the job for not having the necessary skills to clean a deck. A skill which many Mexicans possess.
I don't want to derail the thread or write about myself but. I have worked side by side with many a Mexican. Lots of these guys are very professional. That kid had a major [shucks] attitude. A simple solution to the whole problem is "work or starve".

Hey, we agree on something!

I have done work in a lot of facilities that employ immigrant labor. If you buy beef, pork, chicken, seafood, or produce from a chain grocery store or Wal-Mart, there's about a 90% chance it was processed and/or packed by someone who came here from another country. There are lots of South American, Puerto Rican, and Mexican immigrants working in these places, but lots of other nationalities too. I was in a mushroom plant that was primarily Japanese. The biggest plant I've been in to date (beef and pork) has an interpreter on every other production line that speaks at least three languages, and a large part of their workforce are Burmese immigrants. All very capable employees.

These places are just as happy to hire non-immigrants but not many want the work. One of the corporate big-wigs I've worked with (a white midwestern lady) started out on the production line and worked her way up to overseeing equipment operations and improvements at three facilities across the country. She's been with the company 30+ years now. Opportunities are there if you are willing to work for them. A lot of young (and not so young) Americans just aren't willing to do the work.

It concerns me that many Trump supporters (not you guys) don't make the distinction between legal and illegal immigration, and throw the "stealing our jobs" thing around so lightly (as if an immigrant actually took a job they wanted). Illegal immigration is definitely a problem, but we are overall a country of immigrants. Trump is pandering to the darkest kind of conservative sentiments while sneaking in left-leaning positions on many other issues. He may be slightly less bad than Hillary on certain issues at this moment in time, but he's bad news if we want any semblance of a true conservative major party choice going forward.

[Thogey]

many Trump supporters (not you guys) don't make the distinction between legal and illegal immigration,

INCORRECT! (what evidence do you have to support this?)

Trump is clear that we should have legal and orderly immigration.

It is the Trump opponents who are intentionally confusing this.

Meat processing has always been an immigrant function ala Upton Sinclair "The Jungle"

You come here and start from the bottom. Nothing wrong with that.

Without immigrants however. business will find another way,..... and then be sued by the federal government for lack of diversity.

[natsb88]

many Trump supporters (not you guys) don't make the distinction between legal and illegal immigration,

INCORRECT! (what evidence do you have to support this?)

There are plenty of blatantly racist/xenophobic people and organizations declaring their support for Trump. That may not be the message he is delivering, but there is plenty of read-between-the-lines wink-wink nudge-nudge going on on the receiving end. Of course I do not expect a candidate to go around vetting and denouncing supporters (even Ron Paul got some endorsements he would have been better off without), but I do think there is some intentional ambiguity in Trump's strategy as to not dissuade these voters. Even if he is 100% earnest in his message and intentions, it is still concerning to see a lot of hateful people rallying around one candidate. Politicians tend to pander to their voter base, and I have a lot of reservations about the voter base Trump is establishing.

[Thogey]

There is is! Trump supporters are RACIST. Easy card to play. I should use it more.

Still no evidence. Weak point I disagree with out of hand.

There are plenty of Libretarians (whatever) who are just pot heads. Everyone knows this, they are one issue voters.

Lots of read between the lines there.

Trump should declare a platform to legalize the weed. He will get all the R.on Paul kids

It is refreshing that you have reservations about Trump voters. Most Trump supporters want YOU to have reservations.
I want Trump to win as I have wagers but. I have no control. My politics are local.

Sorry about all the edits. I'm cooking and have gooey fingers

[Treetop]

Honestly nate the vast bulk of trump supporters do get this. Sure the actual racist like it to but they are either usually quiet or very low in number. If you follow comments in social media or on a news article for instance, you will see trump supporters point this exact thing out over and over as the left insists it is just racism. The actual racists guys are always on the rights side the last few decades, libertarian as well. Cant blame trump for this.

[Treetop]

What is the mechanism for this "income export tax?"

We ALREADY have these taxes, called the "gift tax". Can do it the same way as currently. Sure there are loopholes, usually are.

"I strongly disagree. The cannery here tried years ago to get Americans to do the work. They even came up with a program that would allow people (primarily mothers) to work a short day shift in between dropping kids off for school and picking them up. Nobody wanted the job so they went back to bringing in migrant workers."
lol most of my jobs have been in labor fields, dont need to convince me of the attitude of many americans. But this wont last more then another generation or so. We cannot sustain current spending. These folks wont be able to vote themselves wealth that doesnt exist much longer. However it happens they will eventually have to get over that attitude. It isnt magic. Also paying real wages wouldnt raise food costs much at all, studies have shown this. Further I follow this field, and we arent terribly far from machines taking over most of this picking and related work. All the big farming related companies are in on it and making strides fast.

Trump's career for the last ten years has been in reality television. Playing a character, honing a persona, creating drama and spectacles. It's what he does. I do not find him at all genuine or trustworthy. I find him blatantly phony. He says whatever he needs to say to be the center of attention, with no actual conviction. He knows how to keep the media focused on him, how to run over everybody else not by providing better content but just by keeping the spotlight on himself. And it's working well for him.

Cant disagree with that TO much, a little in context perhaps. But none of that matters in relation to what I said imo. The campaign he ran he will either go down in history as a total liar or wokr really hard to get alot of the things done he claims. Mainly more jobs and drastically less illegal * immigration, with a guest worker program btw. He doesnt harp on that part so much but hes consistently said it since the beginning.

Yeah yeah, you have to settle for this terrible candidate because the other one is even worse. Heard it all before. Same argument both parties have been making for decades.

If you remember past election you know I was arguing on your side several times in the past here. If you remember. For me though as I said there is a clear difference. One isnt selling us out to globalist interests and would give us justices that retain our bill of rights in its current raped version instead of tearing it don more. Liberal justices literally outright admit they value international standards and law as much as our own. Its easier to reinterpret law then amend the constitution. All elections I lived through so far was globalist A or globalist B. Now we have americanism on the table as well, and while not packaged perfectly its eons better in my eyes and maybe we will have enough left of a country for common sense to reign in the future. We wont have anything for conservatism or libertarian values to even save in the future if we stay on the current path to much longer. Of course vote for whoever you like I dont care, but I disagree that this fits past elections in this. I mean if hillary wins you might as well bury most of your weapons they will be illegal soon even if they cant actually collect them all.

I believe the war on drugs is ineffective, gives rise to gang activity that accounts for more than half of gun violence in this country, that people own their own bodies and can do whatever they want with them so long as they don't expect taxpayers to pick up the medical bills. I believe that prohibition never works, that the war on drugs should be abandoned, that we should not have a quasi-military federal Drug Enforcement Agency, and that marijuana should be descheduled and deregulated at the federal level making it de facto legal (though individual states could regulate it).

I agree. So did trump for many years until he changed his stance for the election and now just says, medical pot and states deciding on it being legal.

So I am supposed to believe his current (brand new) stances on guns and healthcare and ignore his past very undesirable stances on those topics, but go back to his stance on the war on drugs from 25 years ago instead of his current water-downed politically correct medical-only stance, ignore his support for warrantless spying on US citizens and forcing private companies to create backdoors in encryption because all of the other awful politicians also support those, and believe his grandiose campaign promises despite history telling us they won't come true because he (the phony reality TV star) seems like a guy who will hold himself to a higher standard? That sounds like a lot of hoops to jump through to convince myself to vote for someone. See rationalization.

[/quote]

Ultimately I dont care what you think or do. In the sense that you gotta live your life and make the decisions you think are best with what you know. Ive been around to much to truly fault anyone for that even if I dont like their stances. I do find it interesting though youll simultaneously dismiss his past stance on drugs while bringing his past stance on other issues to the forefront. I dont think your being flexible enough. Trump it seems to me has adjusted his mindsets not as much because he truly did, but so he could get into office and work on other issues he likes. I see nothing wrong with this. I think youd make a solid politician for instance but youd never ever win if you didnt portray yourself a bit differently, and Id still vote for you. What IS clear to me is he wants to build AMERICAS future, not continue to water us down at the expense of most americans for the benefit of a few as the left passes our national sovereignty increasingly over to international interests. We can work together with other nations while retaining ourselves.

[Thogey]

Exactly!

Treetop makes a great but obvious point.

What insane moron would spend 25 years of their adult life (especially at the level he is) and not change their opinion on anything.

25 years ago I was well 25. I was a 1st louie combat crew commander in a missile facility and thought I was pretty smart.
Looking back? That kid couldn't find his way out of a brown paper bag, remember those?
Trump is being honest about who he is. If you don't like it, then fine.

[Treetop]

Forgot to reiterate when I responded to the growing food thing, trump has made it clear he supports a solid and better guest worker program for these exact reasons. Which also means when we dont need them as robots rise in the field of farming for instance, they can go home with their savings. Seems right to me to run it that way and not have unchecked immigration.

Just in case its not clear, I have worked with immigrants including illegals all over. I moved to where I am a minority, way more hispanics here about half of them illegals or first generation legal immigrants. I sure as heck have nothing wrong with them. But this type of immigration isnt sustainable.