What's next? A Trump presidency prediction thread.

sunmaster14 said:
Trump will in fact build a wall. Yes, it might be a fence in some places, and it might be electronic surveillance near natural barriers in other places, but it will be effective in that, when completed, it will reduce illegal immigration by a factor of 10.

As for Mexico paying for the wall, well, it already has. The Mexican peso was 18.3 to the dollar on Tuesday, and now it is 20.6 to the dollar. It has lost 11% of its value because of Trump's election. Given that we import roughly $20 billion of Mexican goods and services per year, which are actually denominated in pesos, the terms of trade have shifted in our favor by $2.2 billion per year. That seems to cover the rate of spending a wall would require.
Click to expand...

Your guy won. You can stop living in fantasy land now.
 
Blue Mountain said:
And he'll pay for #15 how?
Click to expand...

Deficits don't matter. The only thing that matters is aggregate demand vs productive capacity, and aggregate demand has been running below capacity since 2008. There is plenty of room for the government to spend more and tax less.
 
PhantomWolf said:
That's got to be an amazing wall when you consider that over 50% of illegal immigrants arrive legally on a visa or border crossing card and then over stay, or cross into the US over the Canadian border.
Click to expand...

Your statistics are utterly, provably false, as I have explained several times on this forum. If it were true that over 50% of illegal immigrants were visa overstays, then it wouldn't be the case that over 50% of illegal immigrants are from Mexico, and 75% from Latin America.

In any case, I was referring specifically to the illegal immigrants who cross our Southern border.

How will your wall stop 80% of that?
Click to expand...

I do not think that visa overstays is a big problem, but, in any case, that's the easiest problem to fix. Only hand out visas to people who provide enough information for you to track them (e.g. names and addresses of people they're staying with). If there is no record of them leaving when they're supposed to, you track them down.
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
Why is this "pave the whales" **** still a conservative agenda? Is anti-conservation of resources good stewardship of the nation? Are conservatives that convinced some magical skydaddy solution will save us from ourselves?

What a bunch of crap. Recycling your beer cans and not ******** the bed is not liberalism, it's just sensible.
Click to expand...

How did we get from doing a realistic cost-benefit analysis of environment regulation to not recycling beer cans? It makes economic sense to recycle beer cans, and for that reason, it will happen. In my town, people are rich enough that even though there is a 5 cent deposit on carbonated beverage containers, they typically just toss them in the recycling bin (or the trash) and don't waste their time bringing them to the store to get back the deposits. But there are people who actually drive around and dig through the recycling bins on trash pickup day to do just that. The market always provides a solution, iff it makes sense.
 
Argumemnon said:
You really think the GOP will make a new obamacare? They'll sooner let uninsured people die.
Click to expand...

Yes. And nope, they won't kick newly insured people to the curb. The Obamacare subsidies will stay in place - mark my words. Republicans really aren't as hard-hearted as liberals believe. Nowhere near.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Yes. And nope, they won't kick newly insured people to the curb. The Obamacare subsidies will stay in place - mark my words. Republicans really aren't as hard-hearted as liberals believe. Nowhere near.
Click to expand...

Well, I took them at their word, but if you think they were lying, ok.

sunmaster14 said:
That's awfully ironic. Which of us was living in a fantasy world before the election?
Click to expand...

Following reasonable predictions isn't living in a fantasy world.
 
sunmaster14 said:
How did we get from doing a realistic cost-benefit analysis of environment regulation to not recycling beer cans? It makes economic sense to recycle beer cans, and for that reason, it will happen. In my town, people are rich enough that even though there is a 5 cent deposit on carbonated beverage containers, they typically just toss them in the recycling bin (or the trash) and don't waste their time bringing them to the store to get back the deposits. But there are people who actually drive around and dig through the recycling bins on trash pickup day to do just that. The market always provides a solution, iff it makes sense.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting premise.
"The market will provide a solution, if it makes sense."
"Well, what makes sense then?"
"What the market provides."
"Yeah, but what will the market provide?"
"Whatever makes sense."
"I'm not paying for this conversation."
 
gypsyjackson said:
I also hear from the radio that he is going to end cronyism while appointing his daughter to something.
Click to expand...
Isn't there some policy against appointing one's family members? Perhaps he has to start with an executive order changing that?
 
marplots said:
That's an interesting premise.
"The market will provide a solution, if it makes sense."
"Well, what makes sense then?"
"What the market provides."
"Yeah, but what will the market provide?"
"Whatever makes sense."
"I'm not paying for this conversation."
Click to expand...

Consider the source. Not very well versed in critical thought.
 
Argumemnon said:
Healthcare is just another hand-out. People who can't afford health insurance should just die. It's the order of things. If they had worked hard they'd be able to afford it.
Click to expand...

Except for Medicare. Every trillion dollars spent keeping everybody alive as long as possible is worth it, if the patients are above a certain age. We shouldn't pay for birth control for poor young people but by God we should pay for Viagra for rich old people!
 
sunmaster14 said:
Yes. And nope, they won't kick newly insured people to the curb. The Obamacare subsidies will stay in place - mark my words. Republicans really aren't as hard-hearted as liberals believe. Nowhere near.
Click to expand...

Congressional Republicans sued to stop subsidies in states that did not operate their own exchange claiming that Congress had never explicitly funded the program. The claim was based on the idea that the word exchange in the law did not include the exchange run by the Federal government.

Yes, they are cold hearted bastards.
 
Secretary of State candidate, Newt Gingrich, has called for a new House Un-American Activities Committee to hunt "Islamic supremacists" in America.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is calling for the creation of a new House Committee on Un-American Activities, invoking the infamous "Red Scare"-era congressional body as a blueprint for weeding out American ISIS adherents and sympathizers.

"We originally created the House Un-American Activities Committee to go after Nazis," he said during an appearance on "Fox and Friends" this week. "We passed several laws in 1938 and 1939 to go after Nazis and we made it illegal to help the Nazis. We're going to presently have to go take the similar steps here."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom