Trump to win?

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to win?

What puzzles me is, whenever I have visited the US, it becomes very apparent that the US is a two language nation; English and Spanish. I have always assumed that thus the people have come to terms with immigration and have accepted, particularly, all the Mexicans that have made the US their home. Where did I go wrong?

The U.S., at least for now, is most definitely not a two language nation. In practically any venue that requires some level of education, if you don't speak English, you're going nowhere.

My gut feeling is that people have not come to terms with immigration, either. It's just that there are a lot of factors that have really prevented it from getting a lot of publicity: people being too busy trying to earn a living to follow this story and study its true cost to the country, propaganda campaigns that claim it is racist to not want uneducated illegal aliens in the country thus silencing dissenting opinions, and, initially, lack of a critical mass of illegal aliens many American did not see the problem.

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to win?

the reason it is considered racist is that it is primarily aimed at african-americans, not immigrants. e.g. immediately after alabama passed a voter id law they also closed dmv offices in black majority counties. what a coincidence! [later rescinded after a firestorm of publicity, but you get the idea.]

Okay. But why not phase it in over four or so years? And if the DMV offices were closed in counties that are heavily black, how will black people get drivers' licenses or government-issued photo IDs, of which drivers licenses are the most common?

As things stand, the U.S. is going to have, in perpetuity, a porous southern border and an ever-increasing rate of identity fraud.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

In a speech to Alumni of GW in the mid 1980's Herbert Haft, a greenmailer of the era, said:

"I used to lose sleep over the money my business had to borrow until one day there was so much money I owed I slept peacefully. The person losing sleep was the banker who lent it all to me."

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

What puzzles me is, whenever I have visited the US, it becomes very apparent that the US is a two language nation; English and Spanish. I have always assumed that thus the people have come to terms with immigration and have accepted, particularly, all the Mexicans that have made the US their home. Where did I go wrong?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

However, my question is, why is that not considered racist but requiring a similar type of verification process to get a voter registration card with a photograph on it is?
.

the reason it is considered racist is that it is primarily aimed at african-americans, not immigrants. e.g. immediately after alabama passed a voter id law they also closed dmv offices in black majority counties. what a coincidence! [later rescinded after a firestorm of publicity, but you get the idea.]

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

I think the quote from Trump is something along the lines of, "If you owe the bank one million dollars and can't pay it back, you're in a lot of trouble. If you owe the bank one billion dollars and can't pay it back, the bank is in a lot of trouble."

The above idea something I believe is attributed to Keynes: "Owe your banker a thousand pounds and you are at his mercy. Owe him one million pounds and he is at your mercy." Jean Paul Getty has also said something similar.

Regardless, it isn't an original insight of Trump's.

Agreed, I have often heard it before today.

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to win?

Trump, I despised upon hearing (not reading ) a phrase from his first book (in the 80's?), and the arrogant claim of, "if you owe enough money to the bank, then you own the bank" or something like that.

I think the quote from Trump is something along the lines of, "If you owe the bank one million dollars and can't pay it back, you're in a lot of trouble. If you owe the bank one billion dollars and can't pay it back, the bank is in a lot of trouble."

The above idea something I believe is attributed to Keynes: "Owe your banker a thousand pounds and you are at his mercy. Owe him one million pounds and he is at your mercy." Jean Paul Getty has also said something similar.

Regardless, it isn't an original insight of Trump's.

[wayiwalk]

Re: Trump to win?

In a very real sense you have drilled down to the core of the debate; the illusion that wealth begets further investment. If that were so, then there would be no wealthy person that remained in control of their wealth. My reasoning being that true prosperity, in a free nation, demands that all such further investment, has to leave the recipient of that trickle down investment; free! That is the basis of my own belief in the need to recognise the value of free enterprise; underpinned by the creation of a set of agreed rules, mechanisms and associated institutions; designed to deliver that free enterprise based equity capital into new very small business start-ups and thus job creation.

Instead, what trickle down brought us is good old fashioned feudalism; the Feudal Mercantile Economy, or FIRE and the further decent into what one might describe as Borrow and Spend economics based upon a distorted idea of what drives socialism. That borrow and spend drove the creation of feudal civil service administrations more dedicated to their own internal need to stuff as much national treasure into their own pockets rather than take true responsibility for the (Supposedly FREE), nation they purport to serve.

They both bother me equally, as humans, probably Hillary a little more because the whole CGI thing doesn't sit well with me, not at all. I hate hypocrisy, and the abuse of charity to build power is sickening to me.

Trump, I despised upon hearing (not reading ) a phrase from his first book (in the 80's?), and the arrogant claim of, "if you owe enough money to the bank, then you own the bank" or something like that.

As a former NYer, I think I'm a bit more tolerant of arrogant NYers, you build up an immunity to it, but I used to rant and rave against Trump as that mindset is reflected in the mentality of folks in NY finance that enjoy (expect?) the backing of the american taxpayer (and the 2007/8 bailouts).

The one thing that pushes me to the Trump side is simple - the democrats have indicated (Hillary, and Bernie, both, and I haven't heard it, but I think Kaine would, too) they would enhance immigration, and and give citizenship people that have crossed the border and stayed illegally. Now, you can argue all you want about how we don't want to treat these people harshly and why, but ultimately, I see it as primarily a political ploy to ensure permanent plurality in federal elections.

The two party system, while presently resulting in two parties that have crazed wings, but are otherwise very similar, gives us a federal gov't lead by big money.....but if one party had complete control of the federal gov't, I just see that as leading to huge problems. Just look at how well executive orders take into account the constitution, and the rights of ALL Americans.

It would all be fun and exciting if I was in my 70s and wanted to see the country torn apart (I don't think the right wing folks will take kindly to losing 2nd amendment rights), but as a middle aged dad, I really don't think I can bear any new burdens that I think one part rule would ultimately place on my or my kids shoulders. I'm definitely not a globalist, and think the nation's sovereignty matters, and I'd rather not be part of a larger experiment to expand our horizons/borders (or weaken them). Geez, that all is almost tin foil hat/crown material.

My vote doesn't matter, anyway. I live in NJ.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

Trying to wrap my head around this whole Trump thing and it's been really difficult. I simply can't understand how a thinking intelligent person can see him as a viable president, from my own perspective.


But, I have a lot of family members that I love deeply that support him. And, it turns out, I think it comes down to Scott Adams' determination: it comes down to taxing the rich.


If you believe in "trickle-down" economics, or however you want to phrase it... You support Trump.


If you believe that Reaganomics was a failure, you support Clinton.


So, if you think that the upper end of the income spectrum should get greater tax cuts, thereby creating more capital for investment that will create jobs and raise up the lower classes, then you will support Trump.


If you think that taxes at the upper end should be raised so as to fund government investment in infrastructure or some other federal programs, then you will support Clinton.


(I actually believe it's a bit more nuanced than this, but this basically gets to the point).


So, am I on the right track here?


Are there any Trump supporters here who think that raising taxes on the upper end of the spectrum is a good idea?


Are there any Clinton supporters who feel that it's a bad idea to increase taxes on the wealthy?


I suspect the answer is no in both cases.

In a very real sense you have drilled down to the core of the debate; the illusion that wealth begets further investment. If that were so, then there would be no wealthy person that remained in control of their wealth. My reasoning being that true prosperity, in a free nation, demands that all such further investment, has to leave the recipient of that trickle down investment; free! That is the basis of my own belief in the need to recognise the value of free enterprise; underpinned by the creation of a set of agreed rules, mechanisms and associated institutions; designed to deliver that free enterprise based equity capital into new very small business start-ups and thus job creation.

Instead, what trickle down brought us is good old fashioned feudalism; the Feudal Mercantile Economy, or FIRE and the further decent into what one might describe as Borrow and Spend economics based upon a distorted idea of what drives socialism. That borrow and spend drove the creation of feudal civil service administrations more dedicated to their own internal need to stuff as much national treasure into their own pockets rather than take true responsibility for the (Supposedly FREE), nation they purport to serve.

[bpr]

Re: Trump to win?

Trying to wrap my head around this whole Trump thing and it's been really difficult. I simply can't understand how a thinking intelligent person can see him as a viable president, from my own perspective.


But, I have a lot of family members that I love deeply that support him. And, it turns out, I think it comes down to Scott Adams' determination: it comes down to taxing the rich.


If you believe in "trickle-down" economics, or however you want to phrase it... You support Trump.


If you believe that Reaganomics was a failure, you support Clinton.


So, if you think that the upper end of the income spectrum should get greater tax cuts, thereby creating more capital for investment that will create jobs and raise up the lower classes, then you will support Trump.


If you think that taxes at the upper end should be raised so as to fund government investment in infrastructure or some other federal programs, then you will support Clinton.


(I actually believe it's a bit more nuanced than this, but this basically gets to the point).


So, am I on the right track here?


Are there any Trump supporters here who think that raising taxes on the upper end of the spectrum is a good idea?


Are there any Clinton supporters who feel that it's a bad idea to increase taxes on the wealthy?


I suspect the answer is no in both cases.

[bpr]

Re: Trump to win?

Hillary belittles Sander's supporters:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...io-leak-228997

Erm, or she was just putting her opponent's supporters in perspective and perhaps giving credence to their perspective. This is ancient history (February).

Read it how you wish.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

Sure. The companies don't want to be in violation of a law and therefore verify eligibility to work in the U.S.

However, my question is, why is that not considered racist but requiring a similar type of verification process to get a voter registration card with a photograph on it is?

For whatever reason, people want illegal aliens to vote because it perpetuates and extends policies that are bad for U.S. citizens as a whole but benefit a small number of people.

The talk of racism is largely rubbish. If we're talking about poor Americans, specifically African Americans, I can only assume that they have some sort of government subsidies such as food stamps, housing vouchers, and so on. How did they get these benefits if they were unable to prove themselves American citizens? It seems to me that any American who can get those kinds of benefits probably already proved himself a citizen and thus shouldn't find it difficult to prove citizenship to vote.

And again, I'm not talking about requiring new, photo ID registration cards two days before an election which will obviously exclude a tremendous number of people not in the know. But why not do some sort of massive enrollment in April when there are very few elections? Maybe have a four year grace period where warnings are given at each election for voters without the photo ID voter registration cards until a final cut-off date?

Of course, maybe all this is moot if the "you have no choice" idea is true.

Now I understand what you were getting at. I totally agree.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

We've got Twitterbots and botnets being used across the range from crude to sophisticated for political shaping/information operations.

'What's old is new", maybe dead voters can be rebranded as "rotbots" and illegal aliens can be rebranded as "nondocbots"

Hey, corporations are now people, so why not?

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to win?

The company that I work for uses a national payroll service to manage employee hiring and paychecks. All prospective new hires, regardless of race, are required to show two forms of ID to prove eligibility to work. It has to do with the fact that companies can find themselves in big trouble for hiring illegals.

Sure. The companies don't want to be in violation of a law and therefore verify eligibility to work in the U.S.

However, my question is, why is that not considered racist but requiring a similar type of verification process to get a voter registration card with a photograph on it is?

For whatever reason, people want illegal aliens to vote because it perpetuates and extends policies that are bad for U.S. citizens as a whole but benefit a small number of people.

The talk of racism is largely rubbish. If we're talking about poor Americans, specifically African Americans, I can only assume that they have some sort of government subsidies such as food stamps, housing vouchers, and so on. How did they get these benefits if they were unable to prove themselves American citizens? It seems to me that any American who can get those kinds of benefits probably already proved himself a citizen and thus shouldn't find it difficult to prove citizenship to vote.

And again, I'm not talking about requiring new, photo ID registration cards two days before an election which will obviously exclude a tremendous number of people not in the know. But why not do some sort of massive enrollment in April when there are very few elections? Maybe have a four year grace period where warnings are given at each election for voters without the photo ID voter registration cards until a final cut-off date?

Of course, maybe all this is moot if the "you have no choice" idea is true.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

Sure there are very few fake voters:

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/b...ia-localities/

We've got Twitterbots and botnets being used across the range from crude to sophisticated for political shaping/information operations.

'What's old is new", maybe dead voters can be rebranded as "rotbots" and illegal aliens can be rebranded as "nondocbots"