Trump

[scyther]

FWIW, I still like Ted Cruz. He's the most conservative presidential candidate who had a chance of winning in a long time. I'd prefer Rand Paul, but he got like 10,000 votes and gave up. I hope Cruz wins in 2020. He'd be much better than Trump or Hillary.

[hobo finds]

Still goanna waste my vote as I can't vote for Trump or Clinton so Libertarian or Green for me at this point.

[Treetop]

Have to admit I just believed others about johnson never tried to verify his record on my own. When talking to a fellow new mexican earlier he sent me this.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... servatives

Doesnt make him sound very fiscally conservative at all.

A few excerpts

When Johnson took the tiller in New Mexico in 1995, the budget stood at $4.397 billion. When he left in 2003, it had grown to $7.721 billion, an increase of 7.29 percent a year. Of the eleven governors who filed to run for president this year (two Democrats, Johnson, and eight Republicans), only one had a worse record on spending growth.

Johnson also claims to have balanced the budget every year, but what he means by this is that he complied with the New Mexico constitution, which as a practical matter prohibits operational spending deficits. New Mexico’s debt is required to be off the books, or at least off those books, in a separate “capital outlay” budget. This means that of course his operating budgets were balanced; New Mexico makes the alternative impossible. The capital outlays are considered “balanced” if it is believed that they can likely be paid for in the future, and rosy assumptions are permitted. It’s as if you or I claimed to be debt-free because our current account, which does not allow for overdrafts, had no overdrafts, despite our taking out ever more maxed-out credit cards and making minimum payments on each. In the sense that Johnson says he balanced the budgets, every president and Congress in history has passed balanced federal budgets 100 percent of the time. In fact, Johnson inherited a debt of $1.8 billion and left a debt of $4.6 billion, a rate of increase unmatched by the 22 governors in either party who have filed for presidential primaries in the past two decades, with the exception of Governor Tom Vilsack (D., Iowa) in 2007. During every year that Johnson, as he says, balanced the budget, he added to the debt.

The section “Government Spending” on his campaign website includes the false and hypocritical claim that debt repeatedly doubled under Obama and Bush. (It only nearly did so; the multipliers are 1.86 for Bush, 1.81 for Obama so far, and 2.53 for Johnson as governor.)

Lots of other stuff in the article but he doesnt seem to have a libertarian record except on Pot legalization. That said he did have a democrat legislature. But he seemed much more focused on just tax cuts then balancing any budget. For a state the relies entirely on federal money it does come off a bit weird to me. In any event he doesnt really have the record he implies in speeches and I had assumed was true. He left as gov as I moved here so I guess I never looked into it when I voted for him in the past for prez.

[johnbrickner]

Have to admit I just believed others about johnson never tried to verify his record on my own. When talking to a fellow new mexican earlier he sent me this.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... servatives

Doesnt make him sound very fiscally conservative at all.

A few excerpts

When Johnson took the tiller in New Mexico in 1995, the budget stood at $4.397 billion . . .

Guess that leaves Jill Stein or none of the above for me . . .

If I vote Jill it will make the Greens look more popular. If they look popular enough those in power will adopt some of the Green platform (reference past LP popularity and winning party agenda adoptions that followed). Green platform is fairly socialist (not trying to minimize here) so future power wielders will adopt some Green platform into their agenda to take the steam out of Green advances. Unsustainable deficit spending increases, continues unabated and the system fails earlier than it would otherwise . . .

If I vote none of the above then I stand firmly on my principles that there are no candidates deserving of my vote.

~SIGH~ Decisions, decisions. Stand on principles . . . help the system along in a fairly insignificant way???

[Treetop]

Well Im sure Jill is worse on the same issues then Johnson. Jill is also a big supporter of these "social justice warriors", and Ive been following these folks more lately. They scare the crap out of me. The left used to think it was better in part because in college they were more likely to engage new ideas. Well that has entirely flipped with these SJWs. They fight to shut down a range of ideas and thought they deem "triggered" and racist and the like. Most of it isnt offensive at all. Although I gotta say one of the articles I read on johnson last night, if it wasnt the one I linked detailed how he apparently had alot of debt after his 2012 run, a few million even though he had only raised a few million. Seems a rather odd thing for a guy running on the platform he did. Cant even stay within a campaign budget. Id assume alot he raised this year is going towards that debt but I dunno. I still cant fathom how a libertarian could sign onto a trade deal that forces us to follow the dictates of an international court and give away national sovereignty.

[natsb88]

Jill Stein / Green Party is big government / socialism.

If you don't like Gary Johnson, check out Darrel Castle of the Constitution Party. I like Castle on the issues, more than Johnson in some areas. Castle plays up religion a little too much for my liking and the Constitution Party does not have the infrastructure the LP does so Castle will not be on the ballot in a number of states.

Treetop keeps harping on the TPP giving away all this power to international courts, but all I have been able to find about that is pure speculation. Articles citing other articles with narrow hypothetical scenarios and little or nothing in the way of text from the actual trade agreement. Some on conspiracy websites, but a lot of it from far-left rags calling Obama a traitor for pushing this "pro-corporate" agreement. Not surprising that the left is opposed to something that would reduce barriers to business. But disturbing how Trump is manipulating his "conservative" supporters into opposing free markets and supporting big government intervention, trying to prop up unsustainable spending. No shocker though, since that is his idea of "doing business," which his supporters also continue inventing excuses for.

Exactly what I mean when I talk about Trump poisoning conservatism. The difference between the left and the right is shrinking, and Trump is accelerating that convergence on the things that really matter. His token stance on immigration is a sideshow, a distraction.

Mind you, I'm not a fan of passing a 5000-page trade agreement nobody fully understands, and would much rather achieve free trade by voiding and burning existing laws, not adding new paper to the stack. I think it is a mistake to support or oppose the TPP based on an incomplete understanding of it, and anybody who says they have a complete understanding of it at this point is lying. I certainly want to educate myself more before I make a judgement.

Trump talked about how terrible the TPP is because it so unfairly favors China, not realizing China isn't part of the TPP at all Blame everything on Mexico and China, get support from simpletons who hate Mexico and China. A sad strategy that is sadly working.

[Treetop]

'There is alot of speculation over what giving over sovereignty to international courts means in practice, but no speculation on whether or not it does this that Ive seen. It does. Not sure how youd argue trump wants to support unsustainable spending. He has campaigned for a balanced budget in 2000 and 2016. You might not like his approach but he does want to cut alot of the red tape and streamline gov spending. LOL you are still wrong on free trade though. TPP doesnt really look like free trade anyway though, which Id think you ultimately agree with?

[Treetop]

I also dont agree illegal immigration is a side show. Conservative and libertarian values will be marginalized for a long time to come if this continues and worse if we give amnesty to those already here. A few percent of them vote right but mostly they vote for free stuff the left offers. If we cant hault this influx of people the fear of the right moving left is moot because the whole nation will be on the left at the national level.

[natsb88]

I agree that illegal immigration is a real problem. I'm saying Trump's approach is a complete sideshow. It's comical, really. The more I watch his speeches, the more he looks and sounds like a deranged Muppet

[Treetop]

Not really sure what you mean. He is suggesting we use proven methods, like a wall to block a level of illegal immigration that is at immense. If we had such a physical barrier it becomes actually manageable. Without it we will never bring it down to a trickle. Depending on who we listen to 15-30% of mexico is here in the US.

How would you suggest we stop it? Or react to it or whatever.

[Treetop]

Forget how you worded it a few posts back but I agree with the premise you said before, that our southern border is more of a security threat then most of our recent overseas engagements. Also Im sure the wall would be much cheaper then those.

[Treetop]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ouse_watch

Trump now leading on rasmussen polls as well.

[natsb88]

Not really sure what you mean. He is suggesting we use proven methods, like a wall to block a level of illegal immigration that is at immense. If we had such a physical barrier it becomes actually manageable. Without it we will never bring it down to a trickle. Depending on who we listen to 15-30% of mexico is here in the US.

How would you suggest we stop it? Or react to it or whatever.

Something like a simple chain link fence with signage to mark the border, backed up by electronic surveillance. Realistic, achievable, affordable (relatively speaking). Ron Paul even hinted at something like that.

A grandiose wall that Mexico will pay for? Laughable. Childish. That's his version of Hillary's free college and government-mandated vacation or whatever she is peddling these days. Too good to be true. An empty promise.

Deporting illegal immigrants who are caught and convicted of a crime? Also realistic.

Hunting down and deporting millions upon millions of illegal immigrants? Absurd. Trump even said so himself a few years back.

[Thogey]

[Hunting down and deporting millions upon millions of illegal immigrants? Absurd. Trump even said so himself a few years back.

Thar's also what it comes down to isn't it. Trump is a Nazi who will hunt them down or round them up.

Bull$hit! Why can't you just enforce the law's? As an illegal immigrant's status comes to the attention of the authorities than you deal with them.

It's always "round up 11 million families" that is a canard and everyone knows it.

[IdahoCopper]

My vision for the "Wall" is a tad more drastic.

We would clear a 500 meter swath along the entire border. At the north edge there would be gun towers every kilometer or so. The .50 cal machine guns would be hooked up to the Internet.

Good old boys, rednecks, border enthusiasts, etc. would log on, slide their payment card to buy bullets, and mow down any and all illegal border crossers.

I bet in less than a week and about less than 100 dead, the illegal crossings would stop forever.

[daviscfad]

Study the Fall of the Roman empire and you will see history repeating itself.. my thing is Please vote, its your right that a lot of countries dont get. I am not a Trump man, I am not a hillary man.. but i am a registered voter that will vote in november like i always do.. I dont want to see hillary or any other Liberal in office.. Trump means well he just has no tact.. i dont have a problem with that though.. IMHO voting for a canidate that has no chance is not for me.. Trump says things most people are thinking, they just are affraid of the consequences and dont say it. I love our country and still think its great, but the Dems try to finance poverty. They are not for the golden ticket for the black community like most people think.. They want to bring the USA down to the level of other countries, and we are above that.. the founders knew it.. Big government forces regulations that dont even put a dent into helping the problem.. most countries i have visited pollute terrible.. I am not a Trump is gone fix everything wrong guy.. he will do some good and some bad.. I think Trump will reveal things. The harder he is critizied the higher his pole numbers go. Its almost surreal.. I dont think noone is an idiot for voting or not voting trump.. I honestly cant see why anyone would vote hillary though. I wanted Carson!!

[Treetop]

False dichotomy. No need to hunt the bulk of them down. Simply target employers, government assistance, school etc. As well as housing, give a set amount of time landlords have to kick out tenants, or report them. Make an easy to access database to check on people. The bulk will go home if there is no reason to stay. He might end up back tracking on that part, but it is achievable in the digital age without tracking each one down that isnt a criminal funding themselves with illegal activity. Put a good guest worker program in place so employers can hire such folks legally without the fine they would face if they hire someone here illegally. Who in their right mind would hire them then outside of some immigration activist?

Not so sure we cant pull off a wall. China pulled off a 13k mile wall with a drastically smaller population and much smaller economy supporting the construction of it. We need 2k miles for the full border or as few as 1k according to some because of natural barriers. It would absolutely be cheaper then bush and obamas wars, not that we really had the money for those anyway.

Keeping in mind getting those here illegally to go home is entirely feasible despite manys claims we can save an estimated 54.5 billion a year if they all went home. What makes you think many outside of criminals would stay if they had no way to take part in the economy? Almost no work available, no benefits, no school, no licenses, no where to live. Heck we spend like 12k per deported person NOW, and I think it was a few hundred thousand like 400k or so we deported the last year, alot either way. We are doing it all wrong. Simply target employers and these other sources as I pointed out. Ive seen many claims on how it would cost 150billion - 600billion to make them go home or romneys self deportation plan would take 20 years. These are as delusional as you think it is to make it happen, more so actually. You need to eat often, we wouldnt have people waiting 20 year to leave with no way to feed themselves. With fines for employers and a solid LEGAL guest worker program that works almost no one would hire these people, they wont have food stamps etc. Why in the world would they stay? Give them a bus ticket and a packed lunch and send them home. If you arent out within a set amount of time you can never come here legally to immigrate or for the guest workers program. In all these massive estimates they assume obvious delusions. Like making them leave would hurt the economy when we could in fact have a guest worker program already set up and steep fines for whoever hires illegals. As we work at lowering the guest worker program and moving americans into those jobs "americans wont do".

Ive asked many people who insist it would cost to much why anyone would stay with such a set up, and they just ramble around never admitting almost no one would outside of those employed in the actual black market, not just under the table. Would you hire an illegal immigrant to work in your shop cleaning after hours if it meant a steep fine? Or at your mansion as a house keeper? Trump has already said he wants a strong guest worker program to fill in the gaps.

We could absolutely make them all go home if we try. Critics of self deporting type mindsets claim it would take 20 years but that is so biased its mindless. While there are lots of criminals among them, most are not part of the under ground economy like crime and dealing drugs to where theyd even have a way to support themselves if they stayed. So at worst a small stipend and a ticket home is clearly better, especially if in staying you loose any chance to come back.

The real question here isnt if we could afford to make them go home, but if we have the heart for it as a nation or could get the needed methods passed through our government. We spend 54.5 billion on them plus 12k per deported person a year NOW. If all their jobs and benefits dried up and were given to americans and LEGAL people through guest worker programs, you have to be using some immense confirmation bias to think it cant be done. If we actually pushed it hard and as I suggest the bigger problem would likely be it happened TO fast, not over 20 years. Faster then we could fill in the gaps with americans willing to fill the niche or guest workers. Although I guess that doesnt have to be hard either, lots of nations out there with people wiling to work for as little as they often do. Your insistence wed have to hunt them all down is only if we did it like we were mindless. They come here for real reasons, if all those reason disappear, why would they stay? Heck a large portion dont even want to be americans anyway, they come out of desperation, easier to make a life here. But what if it was near impossible for them to make a life here, while 500 bucks and a bus ticket were waiting for them to a place making a life is hard but possible? The real problem isnt the cost at all but we dont have the heart to make it happen. It would be dirty and ugly.

[Treetop]

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/excl ... -pay-wall/

Trump kicking around the idea of using seized cartel assets to pay for the wall.

[natsb88]

Maybe you should share your plan with Trump. Right now you're just projecting your plan onto him. He's not offering what you are describing. You guys are hearing what you want to hear, not what he is saying.

Beyond that, shifting the burden of enforcing federal immigration laws onto businesses and landlords is incredibly NOT libertarian. You want landlords to kick families out into the street if they can't provide sufficient documentation? What about the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who use fake or stolen documents and SSNs? Is grandma who rents out the other side of the house going to go to jail or lose the house because she didn't recognize a fake card? Businesses are expected to just absorb the additional expenses of extensive vetting of the documents their employees provide?

These things are already mostly illegal. If more gun control laws won't stop people from doing things that are already illegal, why would more laws against illegal immigrants stop them from being illegal immigrants or people from illegally housing or employing illegal immigrants? People who do things illegally will continue to do things illegally, except in this special case?

Immigration is the federal government's job. I don't even like states coercing businesses to collect sales tax, let alone the feds forcing landlords and businesses to act as immigration checkpoints.

Also, we can afford to build a new great wall of China here without exacerbating our debt problem and with Trump's new $12/hour minimum wage and the cost of household goods increasing at least 35% from his tariffs?

Doesn't matter that it costs so much more to wage wars overseas. Plenty of lobbyists buying off lawmakers there. Defense contractors stand to profit billions. Building a wall is politically incorrect and not nearly as profitable for the people pulling the strings as war. If anything makes it through, it will be a stripped down token gesture, just like with Bush.

Get Mexico to pay for it? What a freaking joke. You say we'll just tax wire transfers going back to Mexico. Then they'll just mail cash or money orders. The migrant workers here do it that way as it is. So what, now we open all the mail going to Mexico? They send PPG. So now we coerce more private companies to deal with more paperwork to collect more taxes on behalf of the feds?. Do we stop short of just going to complete government banking? Every aspect of these plans requires bigger government with more access to everybody's personal information, whereabouts, activities, and money.

So much fear/hate toward Hillary that Trump can lay out these thinly veiled utopian ideals (bring all the jobs back from China! build a fantastic wall! kick out the illegals! make America great again!) and people will fill in the blanks with their own plans to rationalize voting for him, even if Trump doesn't have a plan at all, or as history strongly suggests, does not even believe in the ideals he is campaigning on.

[Treetop]

Maybe you should share your plan with Trump. Right now you're just projecting your plan onto him. He's not offering what you are describing. You guys are hearing what you want to hear, not what he is saying.

Wrong. I didnt project anything onto him. You and others said it couldnt be done. I outlined a way I think it could be. He did however say he supported a strong guest worker program, and targetting employers etc, so what he has laid out while not nearly as detailed as what I said could take a similar shape if he pushed it and actually got his way.

Beyond that, shifting the burden of enforcing federal immigration laws onto businesses and landlords is incredibly NOT libertarian. You want landlords to kick families out into the street if they can't provide sufficient documentation? What about the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who use fake or stolen documents and SSNs? Is grandma who rents out the other side of the house going to go to jail or lose the house because she didn't recognize a fake card? Businesses are expected to just absorb the additional expenses of extensive vetting of the documents their employees provide?

Love libertarians, but they arent right with everything. I had no idea they like to help people break laws. That said you might have missed I suggested a system you could use to check authenticity ofsaid documents. Wouldnt be hard in the digital age. Never heard trump suggest it but we could do it. Kinda doubt we will be smart enough to however. If we did make such a system though it would be whoever made the systems fault if someone actually checked and found it valid in said system when is wasnt. Not rocket science.

These things are already mostly illegal. If more gun control laws won't stop people from doing things that are already illegal, why would more laws against illegal immigrants stop them from being illegal immigrants or people from illegally housing or employing illegal immigrants? People who do things illegally will continue to do things illegally, except in this special case?

Its obvious, if we had a good guest worker program which trump did suggest, and a good way to vet people, why would anyone bother to hire such people? You kinda just gloss over it and imply people would just break the law anyway, but there would be no incentive for an employer to do so when you gave them other options. What would an employers incentive be here when facing a steep fine??

Immigration is the federal government's job. I don't even like states coercing businesses to collect sales tax, let alone the feds forcing landlords and businesses to act as immigration checkpoints.

Also, we can afford to build a new great wall of China here without exacerbating our debt problem and with Trump's new $12/hour minimum wage and the cost of household goods increasing at least 35% from his tariffs?

If we have other deep cuts perhaps. Guess we will see if he wins.

Doesn't matter that it costs so much more to wage wars overseas. Plenty of lobbyists buying off lawmakers there. Defense contractors stand to profit billions. Building a wall is politically incorrect and not nearly as profitable for the people pulling the strings as war. If anything makes it through, it will be a stripped down token gesture, just like with Bush.

You think defense contractors are directing our war policies rather then ideology? I disagree entirely. Based on what we see with lobbying they do push to get the contracts, but the contracts are there to be gotten because of ideology.

Get Mexico to pay for it? What a freaking joke. You say we'll just tax wire transfers going back to Mexico. Then they'll just mail cash or money orders. The migrant workers here do it that way as it is. So what, now we open all the mail going to Mexico? They send PPG. So now we coerce more private companies to deal with more paperwork to collect more taxes on behalf of the feds?. Do we stop short of just going to complete government banking? Every aspect of these plans requires bigger government with more access to everybody's personal information, whereabouts, activities, and money.

That isnt the only proposed method. I just linked another idea they are kicking around. The wall does look a bit to expensive to make it work that way though, but still doable with enough cuts elsehwere imo.

So much fear/hate toward Hillary that Trump can lay out these thinly veiled utopian ideals (bring all the jobs back from China! build a fantastic wall! kick out the illegals! make America great again!) and people will fill in the blanks with their own plans to rationalize voting for him, even if Trump doesn't have a plan at all, or as history strongly suggests, does not even believe in the ideals he is campaigning on.

PFft there you go with china again. Its more then just about china. I filled in the blanks because you said it couldnt be done and I think it can, not to justify my vote for him. He gets my vote for the supreme court and because I think he wants to do the best for US rather then whoever the heck hillary works for besides Soros. We are at a turning point in our nations future imo, and I cant fault third party votes but I wont be doing that myself this round. Trump is worth a chance imo. If hes a liar like the rest of the politicians? Oh well atleast we got better supreme court picks and I can keep my guns another generation.

[Treetop]

Trump claims the wall would cost 8-10 billion. The bernstein group claims 15-25billion. If correct, sounds very feasible to me.

[natsb88]

You think defense contractors are directing our war policies rather then ideology?

They go hand in hand.

Love libertarians, but they arent right with everything. I had no idea they like to help people break laws.

Who said anything about helping people break laws? Your plan involves punishing third parties for individual crimes if those third parties don't go out of their way to figure out that those individuals are in violation of certain laws, or try to but fail.

A nearby town passed a law that holds landlords responsible for any drug crimes their tenants commit. So you can do a background check and find nothing wrong with a renter. Then a year later that renter sells pot to somebody and suddenly the landlord gets a drug charge for it. I find that to be reprehensible, and a parallel to your plan for immigration enforcement.

Just throw the burden on the businesses and property owners. They have the time/money to deal with it, and who cares if a few go to jail for not actually doing anything wrong

[Thogey]

Just throw the burden on the businesses

Not a big deal, just a matter of simple record keeping.

I've complied with these laws for years. Anybody with an above board business should have no problem with it.

I'd don't think I could even get liability insurance without employee e-verify and SSANs

[Treetop]

You can also leave it entirely on the feds and they could verify your workers or tenants for you. And then come back and tell you later if this person would need to be replaced. It would give you fewer points that you would have to check. If you couldn't hold a job or a place of residence you have no reason to be here. You don't have to put it on the employers or landlords and you could still use those points as a point of reference.

[natsb88]

You can also leave it entirely on the feds and they could verify your workers or tenants for you.

How is that any different than what we have now? And how would it succeed spectacularly under Trump when it's failing miserably now? More funding I guess. We rewarded the VA with more money for its failures. And it...continued to fail.

Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of increased border security and deporting illegal immigrants who are caught committing crimes, as a start. I just don't see Trump as anything special in this department. He's making lots of assertive proclamations about fixing things, but you guys have to keep figuring out and explaining how he'll be able to do it, because he hasn't presented any real plans for accomplishing these grand goals. I fully expect him to do a whole lot of nothing on this issue if elected. Some token gesture. Just like Bush campaigned on a foreign policy of non-intervention and Obama campaigned on ending the wars and closing Guantanamo. He PROMISED guys, Obama's totally going to end the wars and close Guantanamo! Empty rhetoric to win votes. That's a much simpler explanation than some emotional appeal about wanting to leave a legacy or being motivated to live up to his promises so people like him.