Trump could win presidency: Yes or No?

[Craig4]

It seems the new reality for Republican presidential candidates is that they can't win without non-college educated men white men and they can't win with them.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Have you seen the weak kneed, gushingly saccharine speech he gave? That wasn't even high school junior class presidential. It was weak, tired, and apparently scripted.

If Obama had given that speech Trump would have accused him of treason.

I agree in those details, but The Photo. The photo is the only thing important to 90% of the people. The photo and the symbolism.

No, just held up 24 hours in a police jail cell while they check his visa.

Seriously though, Peña Nieto had invited him in the first place.

(He was born in wedlock or his father recognized him ). Yes, it's difficult to understand the political motivation. Maybe to reaffirm Mexico and the USA are strategic partners whatever the circumstances.

 

[Craig4]

It seems the new reality for Republican presidential candidates is that they can't win without non-college educated white men and they can't win with them.

Fixed that.

 

[acbytesla]

Libya.
Specifically her foreign policy role in the run up to the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi. She had been made aware that the situation in Libya was worsening (had she not ?) She had a duty of care to the Embassy staff, a duty to get them out (am I right ?)

No offense, but that is a judgment call. Did Reagan have a duty to get the Marines out of Lebanon before the bombing of their barracks? How about Bush doing something about Bin Laden before 9-11?

Foreign policy and security measures is always going to offer opportunities for mistakes and second guesses. I can show you huge foreign policy mistakes by every President back to FDR as well as some before that.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Libya.
Specifically her foreign policy role in the run up to the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi. She had been made aware that the situation in Libya was worsening (had she not ?) She had a duty of care to the Embassy staff, a duty to get them out (am I right ?)

You are wrong. The duty of the state department is to look after our interests abroad. Much like the military. That comes with certain acceptable risks to have people present.

 

[Minoosh]

Half a million illegals a year. Hard to get in? And what about the over-stayers who arrive on a visitors visa? How does one detect terrorists? The criminals have no problem just coming back again and again it would appear.

I said hard to be one, not hard to get in. Although it can be hard to get in, as illustrated by the hundreds of corpses dotting my figurative backyard.

The rich elite and their backers have no problems it would seem. Don't like the way the US is going - just emigrate with your money. Streisand says she will go to Aussie if Trump wins. She had better be packing her bags.

What does that have to do with anything?

How does one even know there are 11 million undocumented illegals? Here they underestimate the numbers by a factor of 2 to 4.

Again: Can't quite discern your point.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Rasmussen showing the same as Ipsos:

Last week: Clinton 42%, Trump 38%, Johnson 9%, Stein 3%
Today: Trump 40%, Clinton 39%, Johnson 7%, Stein 3%

 

[PartSkeptic]

I must a ****** awful writing because your reply as absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying. I am baffled as to how got got "let's not do anything" out of "Trump doesn't understand complexity of the federal government."

Trump said he was willing to consider starting a trade war with Mexico to pay for the wall. He believes the US will be in a position of power in such a situation. I am not convinced he understands all the ramifications of such an action. And I am not convinced he will listen to economists explain the drawbacks of such a situation.

Things that work perfectly when building a golf course or even running a property empire do not translate well into being president. Trump is used to making a decision and having it immediately carried out. That's not how things work in Washington.He is also very used to negotiating deals in which he walks away with the money and the other party walks away with nothing. He might burn up a lot of goodwill by being a loud, demanding, conceited "leader."

He is excellent at Celebrity Apprentice. No media personality could make a more complelling version of that show. But running a "reality show" is very, very, very different from running a country.for instance, Trump likes to make things up and becomes upset when challenged on the veracity of his unevidenced claims. That is not going to fly in the international community.

I apologize for misrepresenting what you were saying, so let me answer you more thoughtfully.

But first let me say that your whole post indicates that you are buying in to the liberal anti-Trump scare tactics.

In times of prosperity and peace, any laissez faire leader will do. Even an incompetent and corrupt leader is tolerated. When times get tough, and particularly in times of war, tough action-oriented leaders rise to the fore.

In order to solve problems (and I was very good at it), I looked at the problem in simple terms. First one has to recognize that there is a problem.

Illegal immigrants from Mexico. Then look at what is being done at present, and why it is not working. Then look at other countries to see who has a similar problem and how they are solving it.

A wall is a solution. One objection is that it is too expensive. A solution is to get someone else to pay for it, and who better than the country that is benefiting from illegal immigration and not helping to prevent the problem.

Next step is establish how much they benefit from being a neighboring country. It seems they also have industries that make things and sell to the USA. Is it a fair trading relationship? If not then the scale needs to be balanced. Tariffs and penalties for companies that relocate get rich and pay fewer taxes.

Is this called a "trade war"? Insisting on fairness and doing their part? The media with its so-called experts scare the public. With Brexit, collapse was predicted. Has it happened?

People want to do business in the USA. To sell their goods. It is a huge market. The USA has a bad deal, and is getting a raw deal. If a country (Mexico or China) is making a profit of 100% on it goods, would they refuse to do business if they had to agree to 50%? No, they would say, "Gee, the Americans finally wised up."

 

[The Don]

Libya.
Specifically her foreign policy role in the run up to the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi. She had been made aware that the situation in Libya was worsening (had she not ?) She had a duty of care to the Embassy staff, a duty to get them out (am I right ?)

IMO not really.

The Benghazi incident has been discussed at length in another thread - one that I've made real attempt to stay clear of but my understanding is that the various investigations undertaken by the U.S. have identified that whilst Hillary is ultimately responsible as Secretary of State, she personally was not culpable.

 

[The Don]

Is this called a "trade war"? Insisting on fairness and doing their part? The media with its so-called experts scare the public. With Brexit, collapse was predicted. Has it happened?

Collapse was not predicted, a downturn was - and that was if the UK also left the EEA.

The downturn hasn't happened but then again the UK hasn't invoked article 50 yet so Brexit is at least 2 years away and we don't know whether or not Brexit will also mean leaving the EEA.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Next step is establish how much they benefit from being a neighboring country. It seems they also have industries that make things and sell to the USA. Is it a fair trading relationship? If not then the scale needs to be balanced. Tariffs and penalties for companies that relocate get rich and pay fewer taxes.

Is this called a "trade war"? Insisting on fairness and doing their part? The media with its so-called experts scare the public. With Brexit, collapse was predicted. Has it happened?

People want to do business in the USA. To sell their goods. It is a huge market. The USA has a bad deal, and is getting a raw deal. If a country (Mexico or China) is making a profit of 100% on it goods, would they refuse to do business if they had to agree to 50%? No, they would say, "Gee, the Americans finally wised up."

Americans are the beneficiaries of a trade deficit. We get more stuff only to have people turn around and give it back by purchasing our assets. It is probably the best deal in town.

One nation chooses to subsidize their producers? Even better for us. They are robbing from their own citizens and hurting themselves so we can have more stuff.

Your understanding of the economics of trade is mercantilism. Formal study of how humans trade have destroyed any reason put forward from that position.

 

[Ladewig]

I

In order to solve problems (and I was very good at it), I looked at the problem in simple terms. First one has to recognize that there is a problem.

I agree it is a problem.

A wall is a solution. One objection is that it is too expensive. A solution is to get someone else to pay for it, and who better than the country that is benefiting from illegal immigration and not helping to prevent the problem.

I do not think it is cost effective, in fact I do not consider it effective at all. If my understanding of the statistics is correct, fewer than 50% of the illegals sneak across the border.

People want to do business in the USA. To sell their goods. It is a huge market. The USA has a bad deal, and is getting a raw deal. If a country (Mexico or China) is making a profit of 100% on it goods, would they refuse to do business if they had to agree to 50%? No, they would say, "Gee, the Americans finally wised up."

but that is entirely dependent on how much the US needs those goods, the availability of those goods from other countries, the lead time on delivering those other goods, And the price of those goods from other countries. Oh and how easily the Mexico can find buyers - and what price those buyers will pay.

Furthermore, there might be treaties in place concerning what is and isn't legal for the IS. And those treaties may involve other nations - who might be required to take action if the treaty demanded some sort of punishment for those countries that violate the treaty.

I'll let someone more knowledgeable than me to cover this issue. But my point is that when a property developer is dissatisfied with a paint company's bid, it can hire s different paint company in hours and there is no fallout. But Being good at getting the best deals from contractors is nothing like getting the best deals in international trade.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Build A Mall, Not A Wall!

I do not think it is cost effective, in fact I do not consider it effective at all. If my understanding of the statistics is correct, fewer than 50% of the illegals sneak across the border.

Add air conditioning and cold drinks and 100% of immigrants will go through. Build a mall not a wall. We should build a gigantic slidewalk from Panama to Laredo.

We need a gigantic pump on the border shoving manpower, resources and money both directions for the benefit of everyone.

 

[acbytesla]

But first let me say that your whole post indicates that you are buying in to the liberal anti-Trump scare tactics.

In times of prosperity and peace, any laissez faire leader will do. Even an incompetent and corrupt leader is tolerated. When times get tough, and particularly in times of war, tough action-oriented leaders rise to the fore.

In order to solve problems (and I was very good at it), I looked at the problem in simple terms. First one has to recognize that there is a problem.

Illegal immigrants from Mexico. Then look at what is being done at present, and why it is not working. Then look at other countries to see who has a similar problem and how they are solving it.

A wall is a solution. One objection is that it is too expensive. A solution is to get someone else to pay for it, and who better than the country that is benefiting from illegal immigration and not helping to prevent the problem.

Next step is establish how much they benefit from being a neighboring country. It seems they also have industries that make things and sell to the USA. Is it a fair trading relationship? If not then the scale needs to be balanced. Tariffs and penalties for companies that relocate get rich and pay fewer taxes.

Is this called a "trade war"? Insisting on fairness and doing their part? The media with its so-called experts scare the public. With Brexit, collapse was predicted. Has it happened?

People want to do business in the USA. To sell their goods. It is a huge market. The USA has a bad deal, and is getting a raw deal. If a country (Mexico or China) is making a profit of 100% on it goods, would they refuse to do business if they had to agree to 50%? No, they would say, "Gee, the Americans finally wised up."

Sadly, you grotesquely exaggerate and over simplify the solution. The wall is not only expensive, it is highly inneffective.

1. Most illegal immigrants don't get into this country that way. In fact most come through border crossings legally. They just stay after their visa expires.
2. Mexico has many problems. It is a poor nation in comparison to the US. It would be a mistake to think that Mexico could, would or should pay for a wall.
3. If there is a serious problem with illegal immigration which frankly, I don't believe there is, the problem isn't with the immigrants, the problem is with us. All we need to do is stop hiring them for work and the way you do that is you penalized, even criminalize the hiring of illegals. They'll go back on their own if they can't make a living here.

The wall is an incredibly MORONIC idea that is gutless.

 

[Shalamar]

Sadly, you grotesquely exaggerate and over simplify the solution. The wall is not only expensive, it is highly inneffective.

1. Most illegal immigrants don't get into this country that way. In fact most come through border crossings legally. They just stay after their visa expires.
2. Mexico has many problems. It is a poor nation in comparison to the US. It would be a mistake to think that Mexico could, would or should pay for a wall.
3. If there is a serious problem with illegal immigration which frankly, I don't believe there is, the problem isn't with the immigrants, the problem is with us. All we need to do is stop hiring them for work and the way you do that is you penalized, even criminalize the hiring of illegals. They'll go back on their own if they can't make a living here.

The wall is an incredibly MORONIC idea that is gutless.

Not only that, building a wall is treating the symptom, and not the disease. As well, not all illegals arriving in the US are Mexican. My understanding is that illegals are also from other Central and South American countries. Mexico is just on the way to the USA.

Why do people come to the USA? Better opportunities than in their own countries. Why are there better opportunities? because people will HIRE them.

Yes, Deport the illegals when found. The USA also needs to HEAVILY punish and sanction the people that hire them. If there are no jobs to be had for undocumented workers, then they will stop arriving.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Add air conditioning and cold drinks and 100% of immigrants will go through. Build a mall not a wall. We should build a gigantic slidewalk from Panama to Laredo.

We need a gigantic pump on the border shoving manpower, resources and money both directions for the benefit of everyone.

And then rename it the Gulf of Merica.

 

[pgwenthold]

Not only that, building a wall is treating the symptom, and not the disease. As well, not all illegals arriving in the US are Mexican. My understanding is that illegals are also from other Central and South American countries. Mexico is just on the way to the USA.

Why do people come to the USA? Better opportunities than in their own countries. Why are there better opportunities? because people will HIRE them.

Yes, Deport the illegals when found. The USA also needs to HEAVILY punish and sanction the people that hire them. If there are no jobs to be had for undocumented workers, then they will stop arriving.

But don't you know? Penalizing companies for hiring illegals will KILL small business!!!! Or so is the claim.

Which tells you everything you need to know about the resolve to stop illegal immigration. It's not really there. Not only are we not opposed to illegal workers, we consider them NECESSARY for the success of small business.

 

[Shalamar]

But don't you know? Penalizing companies for hiring illegals will KILL small business!!!! Or so is the claim.

Which tells you everything you need to know about the resolve to stop illegal immigration. It's not really there. Not only are we not opposed to illegal workers, we consider them NECESSARY for the success of small business.

All the while crying that 'Ferriners are stealing our jerbs!'

 

[aleCcowaN]

More bouncing back:

Monmouth, Clinton + 7 (from previous Clinton + 13)
IBD/TIPP, Clinton + 1 (from previous Clinton + 7)
Fox News, Clinton + 6 (from previous Clinton + 10)

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin now added to the list of battle states.

 

[pgwenthold]

All the while crying that 'Ferriners are stealing our jerbs!'

Yep