Question For Those That Voted For Trump

[rb]

 

And Trump already announced (as expected) that he would forward the bill to Mexico by taxing their export. They simply cannot afford not to be able to sell their goods in the US.

You know, I was talking to friends over drinks tonight about how all of this will fall into place. Up to now it's been tweets, press conferences and pretty signed documents. It's a very good show. I would actually like to see the cement trucks heading for the border.

 

You say that Mexico simply cannot afford not to be able to sell to the US. But can the US can afford not to sell to Mexico? There is a lot of trade between the US and Mexico and trade is regional. That means that trade with Mexico is disproportionately located in Southern (republican) states like Texas more so than places like Ohio and Wisconsin. So when Mexico retaliates it will affect those states more so these southern states will suffer more. Trump cannot get all these things done without Congress. It will be interesting for me to see how willing these congressmen are to put their districts trough pain. And if congress is good at one thing is postponing things into oblivion.

 

Furthermore, do not assume that the US is the only country that has national pride. Americans think that Mexicans will look at the threats and will simply submit. This stuff is personal for them. They won't just yield. As Americans you also underestimate the amount of pain economic (or otherwise) poorer countries can put up with. They are used to it. So in a trade war where each country inflicts economic pain on the other I'm willing to bet that Mexico's pain threshold is much higher than the US. All this for $60B Mexican trade surplus out of an $18T economy??

 

Finally, I'm not by a long shot an expert in international law. But won't what Trump is proposing with Mexico run against the WTO rules? What happens if the US i kicked out of the WTO? I'm sure there's 3,000 lawyers at State and Commerce working on this very thing as I type.... Or maybe they're just working on their resumes.

[20ppy]

Now once again 20ppy, someone has put words in my mouth since it was about the South China Sea. I will still answer your previous question:

 

"Cardboard, I appreciate your views on investments, however, please explain to us how it is ok for a potential war between US and China?"

 

I am not saying that it is ok but, I am a student of history and I can listen and see the actions of governments.

 

I thought that Trump would focus mainly on trade issues with China but, that call from the Taiwanese president to Trump before his innauguration is a game changer IMO. Then the really harsh language used by Tillerson on the South China Sea.

 

While Reagan is among other things famously remembered for telling Gorbatchev to: "Tear down that wall." I do believe that some of Trump's foreign policies will be directed at making fall the communist regime in China. Especially, if he does get in good terms with Putin and with on-going issues in North Korea, the South China Sea, Taiwan, there is enough here to put significant pressure on the regime from an international point of view.

 

The Soviet Union and the U.S. came very close to nuclear war at a few occasions and this re-ignited arms race and pressure from Reagan still went forward. It is very likely IMO that Trump and his team will push for something somewhat similar.

 

Cardboard

 

Ok, this sounds really some strategic thinking then. I can understand.

 

With respect to history, I submit that Reagan, Gorbachev and the Collapse of the Soviet Union all had to do with lots of luck and the timing of inner workings of social systems, arguably more than the actions of the US and that of Reagan's famous line and all these are some debate for another day perhaps. 

 

As to the hope of making fall of the system in China, depending on one's viewpoint, is obviously very debatable. I'd argue for caution. Of course we should make China play fair & nice in trade and other aspects in world affairs. Yet the pragmatic social-system that is currently working for the Chinese, one can call it "communist regime" or whatever, is there for some real world reasons, just as direct "western democracy" couldn't have worked well for many places, take Singapore for example at initial stages.  The Soviet Union even had enough faith to try it and we all know what happened. Now if the US and world powers somehow pressure the Chinese system to collapse in similar way or even change dramatically or too fast, God forbid, I can see millions upon millions of poor people suffer or even die, imagine blood, hunger, lawless prosecutions, civil wars, atrocities...,  is it really going to be good and for who? Gradual change is the theme for human evolution and progress, and thru science and technology, we can reasonably hope to well accommodate all the needs of all and growing number of humans on earth. Then why all the needless suffering? I do suspect THE hidden and true WMD throughout human history is: ideologies.

 

Who cares?

 

America First, remember? Fuck all the other guys.

 

Indeed, especially when the days of reckoning are usually on someone else's watch, except when all nukes are used up on Earth, there won't be anybody left... How the hell do we get here?! Remind me.

 

 

 

[Cardboard]

Listening to many of you, kicking the can down the road and status quo is the preference.

 

There is a discussion about immigration law ENFORCEMENT and what we hear is let's do gun control instead. So we keep endlessly talking about one thing then another then never solving anything.

 

Then we have a country starting to invade a large piece of ocean, let's and support a dangerous maniac acquiring nukes and ICBM's and, keeps threatening Taiwan and we should not do anything about it?

 

Then let me ask you this on the latter. If it was ok to impose sanctions on a country that invaded territory where its citizens wanted the invaders, then how is it ok not to impose sanctions on a country/regime that takes over oceans, significantly threatens world piece/survival and basically want to take back by force if necessary territory where its citizens don't want them?

 

Cardboard

[cwericb]

This stuff just gets surreal.

 

Can someone explain to me how slapping a 20% import duty on Mexican goods coming into the US is going to collect money from Mexico to pay for the wall?

 

Compared to the United States, Mexico is a small and very poor country. Why is Trump constantly trying to bully Mexico?

 

He obviously dislikes Mexicans as was plainly evidenced by his remarks when he tried to influence the court decision on his Trump University scam.

 

And of course he wants to blow 10-15 BILLION of US taxpayers dollars on a (and how do you say this without snickering) 2,000 long mile "great wall".

 

Should it ever be built - which it will not - it would become a monument to stupidity likely known by future generations as "Trump's Folly".

 

Then he wants to start a trade war with Mexico which is one of the US's best trading partners. And in doing these things I am sure he has managed to insult every single Mexican citizen.

 

Yeah, I think he will make a great president and diplomat.

 

 

 

[KJP]

Compared to the United States, Mexico is a small and very poor country. Why is Trump constantly trying to bully Mexico?

 

 

You answered your own question -- bullies target people they perceive to be weak.  It's also a very symbolic part of Trump's racial [and racist] political strategy that has proven successful, so far.

[Cardboard]

The Wall is one piece, the most visible on securing America's borders. However, expect less visible further steps by Homeland Security regarding the other entrance points or the joke that many of you were passing around: sea, air, Northern border.

 

While many of you do not seem to understand the threat of letting borders open, I should remind you that 911 happened 15 and 1/2 years ago. Undoubtedly, a lot of people have put their guard down after such amount of time. However, the ennemy hasn't and countries that certainly do not like the U.S. have acquired a large amount of fissile material in the meantime.

 

It only takes one small canister to enter the country to kill millions and create damage that would last 100's of years.

 

While your peace loving and empathy for poor suffering people entering the country illegally could be understandable, never lose track that there are a lot of people out there wanting to kill you, your familly and your way of living.

 

So if Mexico is not willing to cooperate, I am 100% in favour that they bear the consequences.

 

Cardboard

[KJP]

The Wall is one piece, the most visible on securing America's borders. However, expect less visible further steps by Homeland Security regarding the other entrance points or the joke that many of you were passing around: sea, air, Northern border.

 

While many of you do not seem to understand the threat of letting borders open, I should remind you that 911 happened 15 and 1/2 years ago. Undoubtedly, a lot of people have put their guard down after such amount of time. However, the ennemy hasn't and countries that certainly do not like the U.S. have acquired a large amount of fissile material in the meantime.

 

It only takes one small canister to enter the country to kill millions and create damage that would last 100's of years.

 

While your peace loving and empathy for poor suffering people entering the country illegally could be understandable, never lose track that there are a lot of people out there wanting to kill you, your familly and your way of living.

 

So if Mexico is not willing to cooperate, I am 100% in favour that they bear the consequences.

 

Cardboard

 

There is a lot of room for reasoned debate about what is or is not necessary for border security, trade, etc.  Part of Trump's political strategy, however, is to try to short-circuit that debate through both overt and "dog whistle" appeals to racism.   

[Gregmal]

Compared to the United States, Mexico is a small and very poor country. Why is Trump constantly trying to bully Mexico?

 

 

You answered your own question -- bullies target people they perceive to be weak.  It's also a very symbolic part of Trump's racial [and racist] political strategy that has proven successful, so far.

 

This is nonsense. Maybe in some aspects for Trump I'd agree, but in relation to Mexico, its utterly absurd. The same could be said about Canada. The difference is you don't have record numbers of Canadians running over the border, joining gangs, committing crimes, and filling up your already over crowded prisons.

 

Mexico is definitely a problem. Their entire country is run by cartels and their government is corrupt. It's in a lot of ways similar to Chicago. Another small, poor area I'm sure many think Trump is bullying.

 

What I like about Trump is where he sees a problem, he gets on it right away and tries to fix it. What makes me nervous about Trump? His judgment, temper, and ultimately whether or not he is capable of solving all these problems. But at least now the problems are being dealt with.

[KJP]

Compared to the United States, Mexico is a small and very poor country. Why is Trump constantly trying to bully Mexico?

 

 

You answered your own question -- bullies target people they perceive to be weak.  It's also a very symbolic part of Trump's racial [and racist] political strategy that has proven successful, so far.

 

This is nonsense. Maybe in some aspects for Trump I'd agree, but in relation to Mexico, its utterly absurd. The same could be said about Canada. The difference is you don't have record numbers of Canadians running over the border, joining gangs, committing crimes, and filling up your already over crowded prisons.

 

Mexico is definitely a problem. Their entire country is run by cartels and their government is corrupt. It's in a lot of ways similar to Chicago. Another small, poor area I'm sure many think Trump is bullying.

 

What I like about Trump is where he sees a problem, he gets on it right away and tries to fix it. What makes me nervous about Trump? His judgment, temper, and ultimately whether or not he is capable of solving all these problems. But at least now the problems are being dealt with.

 

Your descriptions remind me of Trump's descriptions of "inner cities," another dog whistle phrase.  They are exaggerated parodies that play on the deep-seated racial fears in this country.  I'm sure you disagree and just think you're "keepin' it real" or "not PC."  We'll agree to disagree.

[Cardboard]

"What I like about Trump is where he sees a problem, he gets on it right away and tries to fix it. What makes me nervous about Trump? His judgment, temper, and ultimately whether or not he is capable of solving all these problems. But at least now the problems are being dealt with."

 

+1

 

The solutions may not turn out to be optimal but, at least a genuine effort is made to solve the problems.

 

Regarding racism, this is the dumbest and most hypocritical argument that I have ever heard. If it was a Democrat president enforcing border control, no one would utter the word racism. Now because it is a Republican, then it must be racism,  ::)

 

I am glad that he is not stopping at these arguments and keeps moving ahead.

 

It is also funny that you read the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac thread and some of the same people who are totally opposed to changes that may be non-politically correct and that needs to be looked at, are on the other hand, totally in favour of making changes to the GSE's since it can't go on like that forever... So when it comes to your pocket book it is ok to push for change but, otherwise let's not dare go there?

 

Cardboard

[Rainforesthiker]

 

Regarding racism, this is the dumbest and most hypocritical argument that I have ever heard. If it was a Democrat president enforcing border control, no one would utter the word racism. Now because it is a Republican, then it must be racism,  ::)

 

Cardboard

 

"Bill Clinton 1995 State of the Union immigration comments"

 

[Peregrine]

 

"Bill Clinton 1995 State of the Union immigration comments"

 

I think that many agree that there needs to be stronger immigration enforcement. There aren't as many who believe a wall is an effective tool.

 

The times are also different. Clinton presided over years where there was mass net migration from Mexico. Today, there is net negative migration from Mexico.

 

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/11/PH_2015-11-19_mexican-immigration-04.png

[Cardboard]

"I think that many agree that there needs to be stronger immigration enforcement. There aren't as many who believe a wall is an effective tool.

 

The times are also different. Clinton presided over years where there was mass net migration from Mexico. Today, there is a net negative migration from Mexico."

 

Put barb wires and a minefield, I don't care. Just cut it off!

 

And yes times are different. Yesterday it might have been thousands truly looking for a better life. Today it could be one or two infiltrating trying to destroy part of the country.

 

Cardboard

[KJP]

I acknowledged and continue to acknowledge that there is room for vigorous debate and substantial disagreement about policy, and there are non-racist reasons for favoring many of Trump's policies.  But Trump's rhetoric and reasoning is fundamentally racist.  We saw another example of that this week with his "Bernhard Langer" story.  Here's one account of the story, as told by Trump:

 

"The witnesses described the story this way: Mr. Langer, a 59-year-old native of Bavaria, Germany — a winner of the Masters twice and of more than 100 events on major professional golf tours around the world — was standing in line at a polling place near his home in Florida on Election Day, the president explained, when an official informed Mr. Langer he would not be able to vote.

 

Ahead of and behind Mr. Langer were voters who did not look as if they should be allowed to vote, Mr. Trump said, according to the staff members — but they were nonetheless permitted to cast provisional ballots. The president threw out the names of Latin American countries that the voters might have come from."

 

Trump's long support of birtherism and the way he talk about "inner cities" are additional examples.  Whether specific policies of Trump's are a good idea is a different question than whether the rhetoric and reasoning he employs is racist.

 

I'm sure people disagree and hear different things when Trump speaks, just like people hear different things when the phrase "Black Lives Matter" is said. 

 

 

[SharperDingaan]

Chinas biggest asset is its very large number of people, and their entrepreneurialism. While the majority may have limited education (as in the US), the PRC has ensured that relatively (to the west) more of the benefits of globalization have trickled down to them. Whether that person is in Shanghai, Hong Kong, or Taipei.

 

It is far easier to hold a territory when the populace benefits from your rule; there is less complaint when you live in a comfortable gilded cage – in a harmonious society. It’s a very old trick, dating back at least 2000 years.

 

But history has also taught us that when things sour, the ‘toys’ get seized and the populace gets killed off. The really successful conquerors (around the world) have also shown us that it’s a cyclical process. Hence a far sighted man in the East, always keeps some assets in the West.

 

Taiwan to China, is as Cuba was to the US. Both were belligerent countries, and regarded as territory of their bigger and nearby neighbours. When Russia did its thing in Cuba, it almost started an all-out war; hardly surprising if China takes a similar view.

 

As in the schoolyard, might is helpful – but not always right. We allow ‘gangs’ so that no one group controls the school yard, and we let them be ruthless because it keeps the total collateral damage down (the holding territory trick). Push and shove is desirable, as is letting problems get ‘solved’ – internally.

 

Mexico’s biggest asset is also its large number of people, and their entrepreneurialism. But to benefit; a neighbour has to either buy goods that cheap labour force makes, or hire the workforce directly. Without the illegal workforce crossing the border, a great many US businesses collapse.

 

Going forward, ‘America First’ is no different to any other demand; that new car plant gets built in the US versus Mexico, and hires American workers. But the cost of the cars produced is so expensive that the target market can’t afford them at the price point required – resulting in the plant not being built, period. Negotiated bi-lateral solution.

 

Long term, adding 30-50% to the price of a high-end car is actually highly desirable, but exceptionally disruptive in the short-term. I drive the Maserati, BMW, Mercedes, etc. as a statement – I can afford to not have to drive that high end ‘American’ POS, whereas you can’t, so please f*** o**.

 

Highly offensive to an American - but it results in better/new cars rapidly getting built so that Americans can make the same statement – except it’s now that Italian &/or German POS on the road. Insults work, patriotism works, & it wakes up the sleeping giant ….

 

It would seem that the world either compromises, moves to bi-lateral balanced trade, or wakes up the sleeping giant. It’ll be disruptive, but long term – probably not a bad thing.

 

SD 

 

[onyx1]

I acknowledged and continue to acknowledge that there is room for vigorous debate and substantial disagreement about policy, and there are non-racist reasons for favoring many of Trump's policies.  But Trump's rhetoric and reasoning is fundamentally racist.  We saw another example of that this week with his "Bernhard Langer" story.  Here's one account of the story, as told by Trump:

 

"The witnesses described the story this way: Mr. Langer, a 59-year-old native of Bavaria, Germany — a winner of the Masters twice and of more than 100 events on major professional golf tours around the world — was standing in line at a polling place near his home in Florida on Election Day, the president explained, when an official informed Mr. Langer he would not be able to vote.

 

Ahead of and behind Mr. Langer were voters who did not look as if they should be allowed to vote, Mr. Trump said, according to the staff members — but they were nonetheless permitted to cast provisional ballots. The president threw out the names of Latin American countries that the voters might have come from."

 

Trump's long support of birtherism and the way he talk about "inner cities" are additional examples.  Whether specific policies of Trump's are a good idea is a different question than whether the rhetoric and reasoning he employs is racist.

 

I'm sure people disagree and hear different things when Trump speaks, just like people hear different things when the phrase "Black Lives Matter" is said.

 

"according to the staff members"

 

The always reliable unnamed sources.

[Tim Eriksen]

When people are coming in ILLEGALLY to hurt people, infringing on their rights, sometime killing them, how is that interpreted by Libertarian Greats?

 

 

How many people were hurt, had their rights infringed, or were killed in 2015 or 2016 by these illegals?

 

Compare that number to how many were hurt, had their rights infringed, or were killed in 2015 or 2016 by guns?

 

Restricting illegals or firearms...which would have more impact on the safety, livelihood and freedoms of Americans? 

 

I'm also guessing restrictions on firearms would be far cheaper than the $25B that is going to be spent on a wall!  Cheers!

 

Chicago and DC heavily restrict firearms.  How is that working out?

[onyx1]

When people are coming in ILLEGALLY to hurt people, infringing on their rights, sometime killing them, how is that interpreted by Libertarian Greats?

 

 

How many people were hurt, had their rights infringed, or were killed in 2015 or 2016 by these illegals?

 

Compare that number to how many were hurt, had their rights infringed, or were killed in 2015 or 2016 by guns?

 

Restricting illegals or firearms...which would have more impact on the safety, livelihood and freedoms of Americans? 

 

I'm also guessing restrictions on firearms would be far cheaper than the $25B that is going to be spent on a wall!  Cheers!

 

Chicago and DC heavily restrict firearms.  How is that working out?

 

About as well as those "Gun Free Zones" protect our school children.

[Mephistopheles]

When people are coming in ILLEGALLY to hurt people, infringing on their rights, sometime killing them, how is that interpreted by Libertarian Greats?

 

 

How many people were hurt, had their rights infringed, or were killed in 2015 or 2016 by these illegals?

 

Compare that number to how many were hurt, had their rights infringed, or were killed in 2015 or 2016 by guns?

 

Restricting illegals or firearms...which would have more impact on the safety, livelihood and freedoms of Americans? 

 

I'm also guessing restrictions on firearms would be far cheaper than the $25B that is going to be spent on a wall!  Cheers!

 

Chicago and DC heavily restrict firearms.  How is that working out?

 

When you can freely transport firearms between states/cities where it is legal to where it is illegal, having certain cities with gun control helps very little.

[cwericb]

Still haven't had an answer to the question I posted earlier:

 

Can someone explain to me how slapping a 20% import duty on Mexican goods coming into the US is going to collect money from Mexico to pay for the wall?

 

“The White House on Thursday said President Donald Trump is considering a 20% tax on imports from Mexico to pay for a southern border wall ...”

 

Now I’m certainly not the sharpest tool in the shed, and obviously I am missing something because I thought that if an import tax was placed on imports from Mexico then U.S. taxpayers would have to pay those taxes.

[Rainforesthiker]

When people are coming in ILLEGALLY to hurt people, infringing on their rights, sometime killing them, how is that interpreted by Libertarian Greats?

 

 

How many people were hurt, had their rights infringed, or were killed in 2015 or 2016 by these illegals?

 

Compare that number to how many were hurt, had their rights infringed, or were killed in 2015 or 2016 by guns?

 

Restricting illegals or firearms...which would have more impact on the safety, livelihood and freedoms of Americans? 

 

I'm also guessing restrictions on firearms would be far cheaper than the $25B that is going to be spent on a wall!  Cheers!

 

IMO, an example of availability bias, the seen vs. the unseen, first level thinking.  Looking at the 20th century how many people were murdered by state governments, many of whom after first being disarmed by those same governments?  About 140 million or so.  Those lives never enter into the equation of the gun control debate.  But they should.  If anyone really feels safer with only officers of the state owning firearms, then I would point to history - it hasn't worked out so well for those who surrender to the state and voluntarily disarm themselves.  To answer your question, minor gun control regulations don't really do anything to reduce gun crime (see Chicago), but just make people feel like they are "doing something" and it harasses law-abiding gun owners.  Outright ban of guns (a la the UK), likely would reduce gun crime (not overall crime) but would considerably increase the risk of future genocide, and leave citizens defenseless when large scale civil unrest occurs. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-attacks-guns-idUSKCN10Y19U?il=0)

 

No solution is perfect.  But I would rather go down with the civil liberties ship than risk my fate disarmed against any state government.

[rkbabang]

When people are coming in ILLEGALLY to hurt people, infringing on their rights, sometime killing them, how is that interpreted by Libertarian Greats?

 

 

How many people were hurt, had their rights infringed, or were killed in 2015 or 2016 by these illegals?

 

Compare that number to how many were hurt, had their rights infringed, or were killed in 2015 or 2016 by guns?

 

Restricting illegals or firearms...which would have more impact on the safety, livelihood and freedoms of Americans? 

 

I'm also guessing restrictions on firearms would be far cheaper than the $25B that is going to be spent on a wall!  Cheers!

 

Chicago and DC heavily restrict firearms.  How is that working out?

 

When you can freely transport firearms between states/cities where it is legal to where it is illegal, having certain cities with gun control helps very little.

 

Yes we need to ban them everywhere, that's how we got rid of drugs from our society.

 

[rkbabang]

Still haven't had an answer to the question I posted earlier:

 

Can someone explain to me how slapping a 20% import duty on Mexican goods coming into the US is going to collect money from Mexico to pay for the wall?

 

“The White House on Thursday said President Donald Trump is considering a 20% tax on imports from Mexico to pay for a southern border wall ...”

 

Now I’m certainly not the sharpest tool in the shed, and obviously I am missing something because I thought that if an import tax was placed on imports from Mexico then U.S. taxpayers would have to pay those taxes.

 

No one is answering because you answered your own question.

[RichardGibbons]

Yes we need to ban them everywhere, that's how we got rid of drugs from our society.

 

Yeah, why would anyone think that banning guns would have any effect on gun deaths?  If Emperor Trump has taught us anything, it's that people should make all decisions based on blind ideology and not even bother looking at the data such as the firearm-related homicide rate for countries with and without guns.

 

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2014001/article/11925/c-g/c-g04-eng.gif

[rkbabang]

There is just so much wrong with your post I'll try to sum it up briefly.  The stats you post are homicide not murder (this includes self defence, police shootings, etc).  Also it is only firearm homicide.  Does it matter how someone is murdered?  Showing stats for murder (no justifiable homicide, no police shootings, and by all methods) would be a more honest comparison.    Also take out the top 5 gun-controlled hell holes and the vast majority of the US is pretty damn safe. New Hampshire is safer than Canada, not only in murder, but in violent crime overall.  NH, BTW is likely to get rid of its concealed carry license soon, the bill just passed the state senate and is headed for the house now.  I plan on buying a few more guns to celebrate!  And lastly the US has alway been a more violent society, when there were no gun laws to speak of in either country the US had a much higher violent crime rate than the UK.  Actually the UKs violent crime rate has increased dramatically since the gun bans, not murder, but violent crime.  You are unlikely to be a victim of murder in the US even with its increased rates of murder, especially if you live outside Chicago, but you are more likely to be a victim of violence in London than NYC. 

 

All of that aside, you can not ban guns in the United States without starting a civil war, so it isn't on the table and never will be.