2016 Presidential Horse Race

[phgreek]

That response shows how far this is over your head, and how you can't even muster a good response. Sad, but typical of a Trump supporter. They simply have no reasoned responses. Bravo for perpetuating the stereotype.

Yes there is some nuance here related to how and why folks find themselves here illegally...yes someone could also argue the numbers, too high, too low...whatever

But to be clear, are you saying people here illegally have not broken a law?

Yes, before I get run over for failing to say so... I know businesses who entice them to come here illegally are shitty too...and deserve some pain as well...

 

[NDinL.A.]

Yes there is some nuance here related to how and why folks find themselves here illegally...yes someone could also argue the numbers, too high, too low...whatever

But to be clear, are you saying people here illegally have not broken a law?

Yes, before I get run over for failing to say so... I know businesses who entice them to come here illegally are shitty too...and deserve some pain as well...

Have you ever broken the law? I have - lots of times. I used to drive drunk almost every weekend (and many weekdays too I was unbelievably stupid in my 20's and early 30's). So in that sense, I am a criminal too.

But I do not consider myself a bad person, or even close to the realm of murderers and rapists.

So to call undocumented immigrants rapists and murderers, and to equate them illegally crossing the border to criminals who do unspeakable acts is a joke and overtly racist. “Some are good people” but the rest are bad people? C’mon. Even if they are criminals well, fuck, by Donald’s definition, this country and this site are littered with criminals (and therefore, really bad people), the likes of which would fill thousands and thousands more new jails overnight.

 

[GoIrish41]

Have you ever broken the law? I have - lots of times. I used to drink drunk almost every weekend (and many weekdays too I was unbelievably stupid in my 20's and early 30's). So in that sense, I am a criminal too.

But I do not consider myself a bad person, or even close to the realm of murderers and rapists.

So to call undocumented immigrants rapists and murderers, and to equate them illegally crossing the border to criminals who do unspeakable acts is a joke and overtly racist. “Some are good people” but the rest are bad people? C’mon. Even if they are criminals well, fuck, by Donald’s definition, this country and this site are littered with criminals (and therefore, really bad people), the likes of which would fill thousands and thousands more new jails overnight.

I still drink drunk almost every weekend. If that illegal I should be in jail?

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Lax

Part of Bernie's plan with the banks (which has some bi-partisan support) is to re-instate Glass Steagall. Also, he needs additional legislation from Congress to further regulate big banks. The Fed has implemented some measures to create incentives for shrinking the size of banks (and there has been some decline). But they need further effort from Congress to pass more regulatory restructuring legislature. Basically, they need to give regulators authority to cap bank size and decide if (and how) they want to go about restructuring the financial industry. Krugman used to write articles about getting the FDIC involved and nationalizing banks for short periods of time...enough to essentially break them up and then re-introduce them to the private sector. (That's why his article in particular annoys me because he essentially agrees with breaking up the banks and has been talking about it since the crash, yet now it seems his pro-HRC bias has taken over and its an unbearable read for me.) Anyways, this is the most widely talked about "plan" of Bernie's. However, because economic policy is complicated and diverse, of course others have different opinions: This Forbes article suggests taxing the deposit base. Something that's been successfully done in Britain. Forbes Welcome

Here's a couple other articles I read through to help:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/u...s-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html?_r=0

Bernie does have a plan to break up the banks: Enough with the handwringing over that Daily News interview - Salon.com

I know it's a very complicated issue. This isn't some sort of slam dunk. But breaking up the banks has bi-partisan support among quite a few people. I think the answer we're looking for isn't "what's Bernie's exact plan," but "is Bernie the only candidate willing to take on the challenge?"

Hopefully this is what you're looking for. I can attempt to keep searching. *Sorry about the Salon post. They're not exactly my go-to for information, but I felt parts of the article summarized Bernie's ideas better than others. Right or wrong, good idea or bad idea...I'm not sure. I just know that something needs to be done.

 

[Redbar]

And honestly, I don't think I would even classify these high school kids as racist. This is probably more of a hazing situation than a racist situation.

Not surprised you would say this, but it still deserves to be re-posted, with your moniker attached to it.

 

[woolybug25]

Lax

Part of Bernie's plan with the banks (which has some bi-partisan support) is to re-instate Glass Steagall. Also, he needs additional legislation from Congress to further regulate big banks. The Fed has implemented some measures to create incentives for shrinking the size of banks (and there has been some decline). But they need further effort from Congress to pass more regulatory restructuring legislature. Basically, they need to give regulators authority to cap bank size and decide if (and how) they want to go about restructuring the financial industry. Krugman used to write articles about getting the FDIC involved and nationalizing banks for short periods of time...enough to essentially break them up and then re-introduce them to the private sector. (That's why his article in particular annoys me because he essentially agrees with breaking up the banks and has been talking about it since the crash, yet now it seems his pro-HRC bias has taken over and its an unbearable read for me.) Anyways, this is the most widely talked about "plan" of Bernie's. However, because economic policy is complicated and diverse, of course others have different opinions: This Forbes article suggests taxing the deposit base. Something that's been successfully done in Britain. Forbes Welcome

Here's a couple other articles I read through to help:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/u...s-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html?_r=0

Bernie does have a plan to break up the banks: Enough with the handwringing over that Daily News interview - Salon.com

I know it's a very complicated issue. This isn't some sort of slam dunk. But breaking up the banks has bi-partisan support among quite a few people. I think the answer we're looking for isn't "what's Bernie's exact plan," but "is Bernie the only candidate willing to take on the challenge?"

Hopefully this is what you're looking for. I can attempt to keep searching. *Sorry about the Salon post. They're not exactly my go-to for information, but I felt parts of the article summarized Bernie's ideas better than others. Right or wrong, good idea or bad idea...I'm not sure. I just know that something needs to be done.

On the bolded, Why? Tell me why Big Banks should be broke up. I guarantee you that 99% up people that hate big banks have no idea why they do so. Most of the talking points regarding it aren't even accurate.

Also, I think you may be confusing "bi-partisan support" with "widespread support". Sure, there are people on both sides of the aisle that would like to see the amount of banks shrink, but let's not act like they are looking to do the same thing. Bernie wants to tear apart the "Too Big To Fail" banks and create MORE banks. I think this is incredibly short sighted and will exasperate any issues the public assume big banks cause. It's not shrinking the scope of banks, it's simply creating more banks and decreasing the profitability of an industry. The only industry responsible for investing into business growth.

Most of the Republicans and many Democrats that want to "break up banks" don't necessarily want to just go knock on Jamie Dimon's door and fire him. They want to change regulations in order to make them all play on the same field. They want to reform Dodd-Frank.

Btw... where in the hell do all of you guys think the loans from these small community banks go? Do you think that thousands of community banks and credit unions have the balance sheet capacity to hold Billions of dollars of loans? No... even if they write them, they end up with the larger banks. Without large banks, there is no where for large capital market exposures, M&A Activity and derivatives to land.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

On the bolded, Why? Tell me why Big Banks should be broke up. I guarantee you that 99% up people that hate big banks have no idea why they do so. Most of the talking points regarding it aren't even accurate.

Also, I think you may be confusing "bi-partisan support" with "widespread support". Sure, there are people on both sides of the aisle that would like to see the amount of banks shrink, but let's not act like they are looking to do the same thing. Bernie wants to tear apart the "Too Big To Fail" banks and create MORE banks. I think this is incredibly short sighted and will exasperate any issues the public assume big banks cause. It's not shrinking the scope of banks, it's simply creating more banks and decreasing the profitability of an industry. The only industry responsible for investing into business growth.

Most of the Republicans and many Democrats that want to "break up banks" don't necessarily want to just go knock on Jamie Dimon's door and fire him. They want to change regulations in order to make them all play on the same field. They want to reform Dodd-Frank.

Btw... where in the hell do all of you guys think the loans from these small community banks go? Do you think that thousands of community banks and credit unions have the balance sheet capacity to hold Billions of dollars of loans? No... even if they write them, they end up with the larger banks. Without large banks, there is no where for large capital market exposures, M&A Activity and derivatives to land.

I don't exactly feel comfortable with big banks gambling with tax payer backing. I know they didn't cause the 08 crash, but they certainly aided in the it's magnitude by gambling on the derivitives. When I say 'break them up,' I don't mean dismantle them. I just mean lets restructure this and separate the banking (which is supposed to be safe and boring) from the risky investing.

 

[woolybug25]

I don't exactly feel comfortable with big banks gambling with tax payer backing. I know they didn't cause the 08 crash, but they certainly aided in the it's magnitude by gambling on the derivitives. When I say 'break them up,' I don't mean dismantle them. I just mean lets restructure this and separate the banking (which is supposed to be safe and boring) from the risky investing.

Gamble means risk, that is what banking is... banks are suppose to take deposits and invest them in appropriate risk buckets. That's the entire point of lending money.

You can make an argument on derivatives, but if mortgage originators wouldn't have been so shady in their lending practices, then that problem wouldn't have existed in the first place. Please take a moment and read the following article.

Should Big Banks Be Broken Up?

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Gamble means risk, that is what banking is... banks are suppose to take deposits and invest them in appropriate risk buckets. That's the entire point of lending money.

You can make an argument on derivatives, but if mortgage originators wouldn't have been so shady in their lending practices, then that problem wouldn't have existed in the first place. Please take a moment and read the following article.

Should Big Banks Be Broken Up?

Funny you linked that site. I actually read the entire debate earlier.

I don't disagree about the shady mortgage originators. But for me, that doesn't cancel out what the banks did.

Regarding banking and trading:

Here's the thing: banking and trading are two separate businesses. I know traditional banking isn't sexy and it's not always very profitable. Trading is much riskier, much sexier and more profitable. Until it isn't. But banking should be boring and should operate like a public utility. Let trading be the exciting and daring friend – but the risk of loss should be on the investors only and not on the public.

How do we change this? We separate banking from trading and people make a choice on which career path to follow. Banks accept deposits, make relatively safe loans, make modest profits, give modest salaries – and deposits are federally guaranteed. Trading houses use capital for risk investments, use leverage and have huge profits or huge losses. Their losses are not federally guaranteed.

Can this bring order and peace to the banking frontier? I think it's the only option we have. Trading is not a crime and those inclined to take risks should be free to take that route. But taxpayers shouldn't be responsible for those risks – private money, private risk and private problems when they fail. Let's separate banking and trading.

Private Trading Shouldn't Lead to Public Losses - US News

That's my line of thinking.

 

[woolybug25]

Funny you linked that site. I actually read the entire debate earlier.

I don't disagree about the shady mortgage originators. But for me, that doesn't cancel out what the banks did.

Regarding banking and trading:



Private Trading Shouldn't Lead to Public Losses - US News

That's my line of thinking.

What get's me is this whole "But taxpayers shouldn't be responsible for those risks". First of all... what risk are they taking? As TARP was paid back in full. There is no cost to taxpayers for big bank profit. Furthermore, why is not okay for banks to utilize risk for profit, but completely fine for government to take away shareholder value by artificially manipulating the profitability of independent companies? That certainly isn't fair for the average Joe that has his money invested in JP Morgan stocks.

That's exactly what I was talking about before. People can certainly argue that banks had their part in the '08 recession, but they cannot say they didn't pay the money back. Furthermore, they are now the organizations that are driving our record stock market values. Now everyone is asking the government to go in and artificially manipulate the industry (or "regulate" if you're into the whole brevity thing).

So what happens when lending rates rise? When lending appetite lowers because they can't make money in trading? What happens when the profitability of a segment that makes up 44% of the Fortune 500 plummets?

Who is paying then?....

 

[kmoose]

Students doing this should at the very least be suspended and ordered to go through some sort of sensitivity training or tolerance boot camp or something of that ilk (even though I’m sure it wouldn’t work for 95% of them), and any administrator on hand that didn’t try and stop those chants should be fired. #notexaggerating

I wouldn't have any problem if that was the result. I'm not trying to excuse their behavior. I just won't blindly follow the crowd with my pitchfork and torch.

 

[NorthDakota]

The fact that this even needs to be explained is sad.

OK, he wants to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants. 11 million. He said Mexico is sending over rapists and murderers and all kinds of bad people. “SOME are good people I guess” but the rest are criminals. It is indisputable that he said that, no?

So let’s take that “Some” that he’s talking about – I’ll give you 3 million (I would consider that number “some” of 11 million) – so he is saying that out of 11 million undocumented immigrants, 8 MILLION ARE CRIMINALS??? For real? And THAT isn’t racist to you? Either that is racist or he is the dumbest mother fucker in the history of the world. And that is just one example of many. His racism isn’t even a question in my mind.

Well, to be fair...they ARE all criminals. They are ILLEGAL immigrants. Might not be murdering or raping folks(though my uncle was murdered by one in Phoenix), but they are not legally here.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Well, to be fair...they ARE all criminals. They are ILLEGAL immigrants. Might not be murdering or raping folks(though my uncle was murdered by one in Phoenix), but they are not legally here.

Right, and I responded to that in a post on the previous page.

Have you ever broken the law? I have - lots of times. I used to drive drunk almost every weekend (and many weekdays too I was unbelievably stupid in my 20's and early 30's). So in that sense, I am a criminal too.

But I do not consider myself a bad person, or even close to the realm of murderers and rapists.

So to call undocumented immigrants rapists and murderers, and to equate them illegally crossing the border to criminals who do unspeakable acts is a joke and overtly racist. “Some are good people” but the rest are bad people? C’mon. Even if they are criminals well, fuck, by Donald’s definition, this country and this site are littered with criminals (and therefore, really bad people), the likes of which would fill thousands and thousand
s more new jails overnight.

 

[phgreek]

Have you ever broken the law? I have - lots of times. I used to drive drunk almost every weekend (and many weekdays too I was unbelievably stupid in my 20's and early 30's). So in that sense, I am a criminal too.

But I do not consider myself a bad person, or even close to the realm of murderers and rapists.

So to call undocumented immigrants rapists and murderers, and to equate them illegally crossing the border to criminals who do unspeakable acts is a joke and overtly racist. “Some are good people” but the rest are bad people? C’mon. Even if they are criminals well, fuck, by Donald’s definition, this country and this site are littered with criminals (and therefore, really bad people), the likes of which would fill thousands and thousands more new jails overnight.

Whoa now trigger...I'm not condoning any bitter attitudes. What I am saying is there are a number of people who broke the law. I think you take umbrage with "Criminal" because you perceive yourself as having committed far worse..."crimes". Shrug. Not really comfortable in relativistic kinds of discussions, but yea, I get it. My point is you can understand why, think our system unjust, but in the end, people are doing something illegal. As well, while the comparison (w drunk driving) leaves a lot to be desired, on one level, both take ignorance, negligence, and selfishness... However, I don't believe anyone is conspiring en mass to drive drunk, or to get you to drive drunk. There are people on both sides of Illegal immigration making money, and conspiring to break our laws, or aid someone else to do so...To me, thats a big problem.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I love how conservatives are the party of "this damn government can't do one single thing correctly" and when it comes to immigration it's suddenly "hey whoa bro respect the government here, the law is the law let's not get crazy.."

Bringing up that illegal immigration is illegal just makes me laugh. No shit it's illegal, that's why we're discussing a policy change to something that makes more sense!

 

[NDinL.A.]

Whoa now trigger...I'm not condoning any bitter attitudes. What I am saying is there are a number of people who broke the law. I think you take umbrage with "Criminal" because you perceive yourself as having committed far worse..."crimes". Shrug. Not really comfortable in relativistic kinds of discussions, but yea, I get it. My point is you can understand why, think our system unjust, but in the end, people are doing something illegal. As well, while the comparison (w drunk driving) leaves a lot to be desired, on one level, both take ignorance, negligence, and selfishness... However, I don't believe anyone is conspiring en mass to drive drunk, or to get you to drive drunk. There are people on both sides of Illegal immigration making money, and conspiring to break our laws, or aid someone else to do so...To me, thats a big problem.

I was talking about Donald, not you.

 

[phgreek]

I love how conservatives are the party of "this damn government can't do one single thing correctly" and when it comes to immigration it's suddenly "hey whoa bro respect the government here, the law is the law let's not get crazy.."

Bringing up that illegal immigration is illegal just makes me laugh. No shit it's illegal, that's why we're discussing a policy change to something that makes more sense!

...doesn't do many things well...but then IT WAS NEVER SUPPOSED TO DO HALF THE SHIT IT DOES....this happens to be something it was supposed to do, and I expect it to be done well. It isn't.

Hey Buster...I'm glad you are embracing this born again Liberal thing. I know some of it is belief...some dogging other people to convince yourself...its ok.

 

[irishfan]

The fact that this even needs to be explained is sad.

OK, he wants to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants. 11 million. He said Mexico is sending over rapists and murderers and all kinds of bad people. “SOME are good people I guess” but the rest are criminals. It is indisputable that he said that, no?

So let’s take that “Some” that he’s talking about – I’ll give you 3 million (I would consider that number “some” of 11 million) – so he is saying that out of 11 million undocumented immigrants, 8 MILLION ARE CRIMINALS??? For real? And THAT isn’t racist to you? Either that is racist or he is the dumbest mother fucker in the history of the world. And that is just one example of many. His racism isn’t even a question in my mind.

https://imgur.com/a/uCIfx

^Saw that on Reddit randomly today ironically. So that's 8% who are convicted criminals.

Also, not to be a grammar-nazi, but the point of the word "some" is that it's an unspecified number by definition. He knew what he was doing when he said the quote. It got (and still gets) a considerable amount of attention and scrutiny but he phrased it that way purposely. He didn't phrase it eloquently, but it's hard to find holes in what he said really even if the tone wasn't great.

^Not trying to say any of that because I want them all deported. I think any one who came over illegally and has been working and obeying the law deserves to stay since it would be inhumane to round out people and send them back to a country they fled. I do, however, think the border security is a joke and should get way more funding (and probably serious walls in parts of the terrain where it makes sense), so it makes complete sense to me why that has been something Trump has emphasized even if he used pretty questionable rhetoric at times to get his point across.

 

[Legacy]

“It’s not that we don’t know how to solve illegal immigration. What is missing is the political will to get it done. And, as president, I will get it done. We will secure the borders.” – Ted Cruz

With control of both houses of Congress, a party can't put together a comprehensive immigration bill to be signed by the President? On an issue that voters consider to be of the highest priority? A great example of no political will, Cruz.

 

[NDinL.A.]

https://imgur.com/a/uCIfx

^Saw that on Reddit randomly today ironically. So that's 8% who are convicted criminals.

Also, not to be a grammar-nazi, but the point of the word "some" is that it's an unspecified number by definition. He knew what he was doing when he said the quote. It got (and still gets) a considerable amount of attention and scrutiny but he phrased it that way purposely. He didn't phrase it eloquently, but it's hard to find holes in what he said really even if the tone wasn't great.

You made my point for me. 8% is nowhere near a majority, and proves even further what a racist, fear-mongering POS he is.

And it's actually not hard to find holes in what he said - I did it above quite easily. You can play semantics with the word "some" all you want, but anyone with a 3rd grade education knows that some means less than half, and is you want to use a word that signifies majority, you say "most". In truth, as your stat points out, MOST are good people, clearly. Trump the Chump just wanted to incite his sheep, and it worked.

Like I've said from the beginning, you can secure the borders without trying to incite a race war and without trying to divide the country. And claiming to be able to make a broke country write your racist ass a check? Laughable.

 

[GATTACA!]

Saw this today, not sure if the Clinton one is even true, but the Trump one appears to be. Additionally in the comments someone posted this little excerpt from the article that had the Trump story...

“Trump’s lawyer sent every member of the town council copies of two classic movies about discrimination: ‘A Gentleman’s Agreement,’ about a journalist who pretends to be Jewish to expose anti-Semitism, and ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner’ about a white couple’s reaction to their daughter bringing home a black fiancé.”

I don't think Trump is a racist, I think he is just pandering to a segment of the population that is racist. I think he knows he has zero chance of winning a race against either Clinton or Sanders on the substance of his policies so he's instead trying to tap into pure emotion. This could probably end up being worse than actually being racist.

I obviously have nothing to back up this idea, but I think if Trump were to win the presidency he wouldn't even attempt any of the crazy shit he's campaigning on (deporting mexicans, banning muslims, ect). I think he knows congress would never pass any of the legislature he would need to enforce those plans, and I think he doesn't even believe what he's saying. I think he would end up just trying to do what he does best and go after the job creation economic growth stuff he's talked about. Try to boost the economy and make his reelection inevitable that way. Maybe this is just wishful thinking.

Edit: It appears that the Clinton one was sort of half true? Apparently Bill was the one that had the membership to that club.

 

[woolybug25]

Saw this today, not sure if the Clinton one is even true, but the Trump one appears to be. Additionally in the comments someone posted this little excerpt from the article that had the Trump story...



I don't think Trump is a racist, I think he is just pandering to a segment of the population that is racist. I think he knows he has zero chance of winning a race against either Clinton or Sanders on the substance of his policies so he's instead trying to tap into pure emotion. This could probably end up being worse than actually being racist.

I obviously have nothing to back up this idea, but I think if Trump were to win the presidency he wouldn't even attempt any of the crazy shit he's campaigning on (deporting mexicans, banning muslims, ect). I think he knows congress would never pass any of the legislature he would need to enforce those plans, and I think he doesn't even believe what he's saying. I think he would end up just trying to do what he does best and go after the job creation economic growth stuff he's talked about. Try to boost the economy and make his reelection inevitable that way. Maybe this is just wishful thinking.

Edit: It appears that the Clinton one was sort of half true? Apparently Bill was the one that had the membership to that club.

I have never seen a candidate where people will so willfully ignore the rhetoric they say and make assumptions on what they "mean".

Seriously, in the last two cycles, conservatives hung on every word Obama said waiting to jump on any comment they could take as verbatim and out of context, so they could spin it to their narrative. Take "cling to guns and religion" as an example.

But with Trump... noooooo..... "that's not what he meant". It's absurd.

I have also never seen a candidate that has so many of their followers don't actually think that they will accomplish what they propose. The common response when I ask a Trump supporter how the rounding up (cough-internment-cough) of 11 Million mexicans would work, is "well... he'll back off of that".

The absurdity of millions of people wanting a man that they a) can't fully support his policies b) don't think he'll execute said policies and c) not actually means what he says is beyond comprehension to me.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Building a wall is just stupid and impractical its Trump's comments about banning Muslims from entering the country, inaccurately portraying most of those who cross the border as drug dealers and rapists with he assumes a few decent people sprinkled in, and advocating birther conspiracies that make him an obvious racist. He is also clearly a misogynistic sexist.

And unnecessary!

The electorate should ask; A) Is implemented, is this the biggest pork barrel of all times? and, B) As is true with any pork, who would be getting fabulously wealthy off of this?

 

[Irish#1]

I have never seen a candidate where people will so willfully ignore the rhetoric they say and make assumptions on what they "mean".

Seriously, in the last two cycles, conservatives hung on every word Obama said waiting to jump on any comment they could take as verbatim and out of context, so they could spin it to their narrative. Take "cling to guns and religion" as an example.

But with Trump... noooooo..... "that's not what he meant". It's absurd.

I have also never seen a candidate that has so many of their followers don't actually think that they will accomplish what they propose. The common response when I ask a Trump supporter how the rounding up (cough-internment-cough) of 11 Million mexicans would work, is "well... he'll back off of that".

The absurdity of millions of people wanting a man that they a) can't fully support his policies b) don't think he'll execute said policies and c) not actually means what he says is beyond comprehension to me.

Over analyzing. It's very simple. Trump is not a traditional politician and he's speaking his mind, PC police be damned. That's the basis for his popularity. Supporters don't really care about what he may or may not do if elected. They are just trying to send both parties a wake up call to quit going down the same worn path.

 

[drayer54]

I have never seen a candidate where people will so willfully ignore the rhetoric they say and make assumptions on what they "mean".

Seriously, in the last two cycles, conservatives hung on every word Obama said waiting to jump on any comment they could take as verbatim and out of context, so they could spin it to their narrative. Take "cling to guns and religion" as an example.

But with Trump... noooooo..... "that's not what he meant". It's absurd.

I have also never seen a candidate that has so many of their followers don't actually think that they will accomplish what they propose. The common response when I ask a Trump supporter how the rounding up (cough-internment-cough) of 11 Million mexicans would work, is "well... he'll back off of that".

The absurdity of millions of people wanting a man that they a) can't fully support his policies b) don't think he'll execute said policies and c) not actually means what he says is beyond comprehension to me.

I agree and made a lot of sense of this article:

Unlike Ronald Reagan, Trump has no ideology to fall back on. Unlike Richard Nixon, Trump is not power-hungry. He is like a kid who steals cars to take a joy ride, not because he wants a car. Today, Trump wants to joyride the United States. After eight years, he’ll give it back.

Read more: Trump tries to hijack America. Want to stop him? - POLITICO
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

 

[phgreek]

And unnecessary!

The electorate should ask; A) Is implemented, is this the biggest pork barrel of all times? and, B) As is true with any pork, who would be getting fabulously wealthy off of this?

hopefully me...wall or no wall I'm going to make money securing that border...and it'll be THE most satisfying money I've ever made...It will go toward ending a stupid, stupid state of affairs that has gone on far too long, and people will finally get to the substantive issues...how many, who, what do we do with those already here.

 

[woolybug25]

Over analyzing. It's very simple. Trump is not a traditional politician and he's speaking his mind, PC police be damned. That's the basis for his popularity. Supporters don't really care about what he may or may not do if elected. They are just trying to send both parties a wake up call to quit going down the same worn path.

We are supposed to analyze the candidates, that's the entire point of an election process.

"Sending a wake up call" by electing a tyrant seems like a pretty short sighted decision.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Over analyzing. It's very simple. Trump is not a traditional politician and he's speaking his mind, PC police be damned. That's the basis for his popularity. Supporters don't really care about what he may or may not do if elected. They are just trying to send both parties a wake up call to quit going down the same worn path.

If only it were that simple. Ever talked to a Trump supporter? I’m not talking about a guy kinda into Trump, I’m talking about someone REALLY all about Trump. They are NOT just trying to send politicians a message – they believe in almost everything he says (especially the racist/hate rhetoric) and expect him to institute his policies. This is not just a (IMO much-needed) wake-up call to the Republican party – I would say in speaking to many of them and watching his rallies, a large majority of his supporters not only want him to do all he claims he will do (impossible, but whatever), but they expect him to do it.

Wait until the general election – this will be a mini race war. I called it a long time before Chicago happened, and it will only escalate. Latinos friggin’ HATE Trump with a white-hot passion (as do many African Americans), and him acting presidential for a couple of months won’t undo what he has already done.

 

[ACamp1900]

I know one true believer when it comes to Trump and a handful of others who are curious/into it but don't really pay attention. My lone believer is just very anti gov in it's current form and is desperate for anything they perceive as such to get into a position of power... it's really that simple with her. Short sighted, incorrect, whatever you want to call it... her excusing of whatever he says is really hinged on her thirst for anyone or anything to stop big gov.. and she has it in her head Trump is the only option there. At least that's the way she comes off to me.

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

So who here has no issues with letting the refugees in?