Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[sunmaster14]

Are you planning to vote for Trump? What kind of policies to you expect from him?

I hope Trump wins, but I will be voting for Gary Johnson. I expect Trump to build a wall, cut taxes, and appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court. That's enough for me.

 

[NoahFence]

I hope Trump wins, but I will be voting for Gary Johnson. I expect Trump to build a wall, cut taxes, and appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court. That's enough for me.

The funny (sad) thing is you base that on the knowledge that he's said he'll do that stuff.

You know damn well he isn't going to. You know damn well he's in this for himself. And you don't care. Why do you hate America?

 

[Belz...]

I hope Trump wins, but I will be voting for Gary Johnson. I expect Trump to build a wall, cut taxes, and appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court. That's enough for me.

1) Don't you think that his temperament is incompatible with the office he is running for?

2) Wouldn't cutting taxes mean more debt?

3) Why would the political leaning of a judge be important?

 

[plague311]

I hope Trump wins, but I will be voting for Gary Johnson. I expect Trump to build a wall, cut taxes, and appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court. That's enough for me.

You have no issues with our infrastructure further falling apart, or the fact a wall is easily the most asinine (and money pit) idea ever?

We were toying with some numbers. Completely outside of building the wall, just manning it would be expensive. According to data:

the annual salary of a new border patrol agent ranged from $33,829 to $42,948

That's for a NEW agent. Let's take $40,000 as our baseline for the agents that will patrol the wall. After all, you HAVE to have agents there in person or else there's no point. People will just buy ladders and climb over, it won't even slow them down.

The United States has...1,989 miles [of border] with Mexico.

They previously had 2,000+ agents patrolling only certain areas. Lots of places they didn't go. So you're going to have to increase that by at least double. I would even say 4 agents per mile is underselling it, but we'll use it anyway. That's $80 million a year in JUST border guards, and that is assuming a low end rate of pay.

You're going to need equipment, training, etc. You're going to have to include yearly maintenance, and repair. All of that to stop immigration from a country that, again, is a net negative.

And with that increased cost you somehow want *********** taxes decreased? How? You haven't addressed the effects on the economy or the fact that you are going to have to take a **** ton of land from Americans. It's insane to me that people support that idea. $17 billion to build it and do you seriously think Mexico will pay for it?

 

[Dr. Keith]

What was the situation before abortion was legalised in the USA were women prosecuted for murder or other crimes if they had an abortion?

I don't think it is entirely clear. In the article I link above the pro-life advocate asserts that they weren't.

I think it mainly broke around class and race lines, but I'm not digging into it for this thread. The point is that pro-life people assert that they weren't prosecuted and they won't be prosecuted. And sunmaster14 asserts that they are all in on a big lie, with no leaks.

I think NASA had a better chance of faking the moon landings than pro-life advocates staying consistent on a lie, but that's just my assessment.

 

[Crossbow]

I hope Trump wins, but I will be voting for Gary Johnson. I expect Trump to build a wall, cut taxes, and appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court. That's enough for me.

Wow!

This has got to be the first time that I have ever heard someone support a political candidate while simultaneously voting for a different candidate.

Then again, I never thought that Carly Finora was an "unbeatable" candidate either.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes. Vainglorious is a very good description. Perhaps even Tone-deaf, clueless, or blindingly self-centered.

How would you describe it?

Speaking for myself, I'd say "infantile". It covers all that and a bit more, such as petulant. Alex Salmond, who's had extensive dealings with Trump, calls him a "man-child". Trump is basically stuck in the Terrible Twos.

 

[CapelDodger]

You're probably baffled because you think he's conservative, I'm amused that you think he is.

I'm amused (but far from surprised) that you think because you think he thinks that then he does. In fact none of us think Trump is a conservative. He doesn't have the intellectual depth to rate such categories.

My vote for him is because Hillary is worse and compared to her he isn't that bad from a conservative point of view.

"Hillary is worse because Hillary is bad".

You people face two unattractive possibilities once this is all over. In one Trump wins and is the disaster we all know he will be. In the other Hillary Clinton wins and isn't the disaster you believe she will be.

As for which dies first, my money's on the fat kid with no impulse control whom the Republican Party leadership would love to see on a slab, whichever way it goes. More strength to their elbow, say I.

 

[Crossbow]

You're probably baffled because you think he's conservative, I'm amused that you think he is.

My vote for him is because Hillary is worse and compared to her he isn't that bad from a conservative point of view.

With supporters like you, then Trump is sure to lose.

 

[sunmaster14]

1) Don't you think that his temperament is incompatible with the office he is running for?

No, not at all. Frankly, I think Hillary is more prone to actual temper tantrums. She just is better about hiding them.

2) Wouldn't cutting taxes mean more debt?

Yes, what's wrong with debt? Our national debt plus currency plus reserves is equal to the net financial savings of the non-governmental sector. The country's debt is the private sector's financial wealth. If there is too little, then aggregate demand drops below the economy's capacity, and we have a recession. Every single time the federal government has run a budget surplus for 2 or more years straight, a recession has immediately followed.

3) Why would the political leaning of a judge be important?

Because judges make rulings based on their political philosophy. That much is obvious. And I think the liberal justices are horrible. They would wipe their asses with the Constitution if that would guarantee they get the result they want.

 

[NoahFence]

No, not at all. Frankly, I think Hillary is more prone to actual temper tantrums. She just is better about hiding them.

Indeed. She hides them by not having them. Right on!

 

[sunmaster14]

You have no issues with our infrastructure further falling apart, or the fact a wall is easily the most asinine (and money pit) idea ever?

You haven't explained why the idea is asinine, so there is nothing to rebut here.

We were toying with some numbers. Completely outside of building the wall, just manning it would be expensive. According to data:



That's for a NEW agent. Let's take $40,000 as our baseline for the agents that will patrol the wall. After all, you HAVE to have agents there in person or else there's no point. People will just buy ladders and climb over, it won't even slow them down.



They previously had 2,000+ agents patrolling only certain areas. Lots of places they didn't go. So you're going to have to increase that by at least double. I would even say 4 agents per mile is underselling it, but we'll use it anyway. That's $80 million a year in JUST border guards, and that is assuming a low end rate of pay.

Apparently you really were toying with the numbers instead of checking them, since your math is wrong. At 4 agents per mile and 2,000 miles, that's 8,000 agents, and at $40,000 each, that's $320 million per year. I think that's an overestimate, and, in any case, we're spending some of that money already (ineffectively), but it still is a drop in the bucket. Remember that each illegal immigrant is costing society about $10,000 per year, net, just based on rudimentary benefits and services that local and state governments have to provide. On top of that, they take jobs from our own citizens, which creates unemployment and the highly corrosive effects that come with unemployment (i.e. depression, erosion of skills and discipline, crime).

You're going to need equipment, training, etc. You're going to have to include yearly maintenance, and repair. All of that to stop immigration from a country that, again, is a net negative.

I'm not convinced that immigration is a net negative right now, but it's irrelevant anyway. If we built a wall, then whatever net immigration there is now would be lower (more negative) than it is now. The wall wouldn't stop people from leaving. The border guards would let anybody who wanted to leave to walk out of a gate.

And with that increased cost you somehow want *********** taxes decreased? How? You haven't addressed the effects on the economy or the fact that you are going to have to take a **** ton of land from Americans. It's insane to me that people support that idea. $17 billion to build it and do you seriously think Mexico will pay for it?

The construction costs of a wall would have no material effect on the economy. And the land is crappy land anyway, and most of it is in the hands of the government already. You're throwing around $17 billion as if I'm supposed to be impressed by that. The GDP of the US is more than 1,000 times as much, and that's per year. An aircraft carrier battle group costs as much or more than a wall, and what do we get out of that? Could be a lot, could be nothing. I don't know. But it certainly isn't debated very much. But somehow Democrats are all bent out of shape by what amounts to loose change being spent on building a wall? It's wholly disingenuous outrage.

 

[Upchurch]

Indeed. She hides them by not having them. Right on!

But there are rumors that she has 'em. Rumors are way more convincing.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The Wall will not be build for obvious reasons:

Trump would have to break agreements with Native American Tribes, dispossess thousands of people and destroy entire towns to do it.
Even if he tried, the legal battles to do so would take a decade to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

[Ladewig]

The post has indicated that this is just one of several data points that bring him or her to this conclusion.

Yes. I was trying to emphasize that it should not be used as a data point to reach that (valid) conclusion.

 

[The Don]

The Wall will not be build for obvious reasons:

Trump would have to break agreements with Native American Tribes, dispossess thousands of people and destroy entire towns to do it.
Even if he tried, the legal battles to do so would take a decade to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

I thought it was going to be built on the Mexican side using Mexican money ergo it's their problem

 

[NoahFence]

You haven't explained why the idea is asinine, so there is nothing to rebut here.

Except in the next paragraph you "rebut" his explanation:

Apparently you really were toying with the numbers instead of checking them, since your math is wrong. At 4 agents per mile and 2,000 miles, that's 8,000 agents, and at $40,000 each, that's $320 million per year. I think that's an overestimate, and, in any case, we're spending some of that money already (ineffectively), but it still is a drop in the bucket. Remember that each illegal immigrant is costing society about $10,000 per year, net, just based on rudimentary benefits and services that local and state governments have to provide. On top of that, they take jobs from our own citizens, which creates unemployment and the highly corrosive effects that come with unemployment (i.e. depression, erosion of skills and discipline, crime).

Can't say I'm surprised.

I'm not convinced that immigration is a net negative right now, but it's irrelevant anyway. If we built a wall, then whatever net immigration there is now would be lower (more negative) than it is now. The wall wouldn't stop people from leaving. The border guards would let anybody who wanted to leave to walk out of a gate.

Of course you're not convinced. It doesn't fit the narrative. Nothing would convince you unless it fits the narrative.

(we can see that, you know)

The construction costs of a wall would have no material effect on the economy.

Taxpayer funding a useless muti-billion dollar boondoggle wouldn't have an effect?

And the land is crappy land anyway, and most of it is in the hands of the government already.

Opinion. American citizens crappy land is still THEIR land.

You're throwing around $17 billion as if I'm supposed to be impressed by that. The GDP of the US is more than 1,000 times as much, and that's per year. An aircraft carrier battle group costs as much or more than a wall, and what do we get out of that?

Uh, safety?

Could be a lot, could be nothing. I don't know. But it certainly isn't debated very much. But somehow Democrats are all bent out of shape by what amounts to loose change being spent on building a wall? It's wholly disingenuous outrage.

Remarkable disconnect from reality. As is typical of HDS sufferers.

 

[Belz...]

No, not at all.

What are you talking about? He responds to the slightest criticism with angry midnight tweets and lawsuits. He makes veiled threats of violence, and promises to commit war crimes. What does it take for you to consider someone unqualified for that office?

Frankly, I think Hillary is more prone to actual temper tantrums. She just is better about hiding them.

Is she hiding them in a way that makes you unable to support that claim, or do you have any evidence of that?

Yes, what's wrong with debt?

I thought you guys hated big governments and debt.

Because judges make rulings based on their political philosophy.

Don't you think that's a problem?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I thought it was going to be built on the Mexican side using Mexican money ergo it's their problem

Actually, Trump said it would be on the US side.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Through the nativist/Republican/right-wing prism, big diffs in this campaign between Dems and Reps:

• Hilary's gaffe about the undesirables among Trumpsters = "running a hate-filled campaign"
• Trumps months' long string of unsupported insults, slander, and lies = "tells it like it is"

• Democrats spend anything, including on bipartisan programs, or there is a deficit = "they're ruining the economy"
• Republicans doling out benefits to seniors for votes under BushII, war deficits = "drop in the bucket, deficits don't matter"

Republicans simply, plainly, lack the courage to own up to hard truths, so they bounce it all back on the world and point fingers. Neither brave nor manly. Never thought I'd see so many millions drop all pretense of being adults and cry like newborns. This is not the exceptionalism anyone was looking for.