Donald Trump Running for President

[phinds]

What is genuinely disturbing, however, is how many people like him and actually want to see him win.

Yes, the problem is not that The Donald is SUCH a terrific rabble rouser, it's that we have so much rabble.

 

[cellurl]

Donald Trump is nothing more than a carnival barker who is stoking his ego and engaging in the type of shameless self-promotion that has been his gimmick over the years (no doubt enhancing his visibility and thus his bottom line along the way). There is no chance whatsoever that Mr. Trump can possibly win the nomination or else be elected President, and I'm surprised that anyone takes this man or his run for the nomination seriously.

Wanna bet some money?

 

[mheslep]

...
What is genuinely disturbing, however, is how many people like him and actually want to see him win.

I thought similarly in '08 about John "Silk Pony" Edwards, who came close, Al Sharpton in '04, and now avowed socialist Bernie Sanders, though for different reasons. In hindsight we have actual vote counts for those guys; nobody has cast a single ballot yet for Trump.

 

[mheslep]

Most relevant poll at this point I think would be Iowa, where Gov. Walker has been ahead at ~18% for months until Trump came from the near the bottom and took the lead a couple weeks ago. I think Walker comes out on top come voting day, given his long time on top indicates he's doing his due diligence campaigning in Iowa.

 

[phinds]

Wanna bet some money?

The Republicans might be nutso enough to nominate him, but I've got $1,000 that says he won't be president. Even odds and we'll get Greg to hold the money.

 

[jim hardy]

What's surprising to me is just how much anger must be out there.

Somebody said 'Fox reaped what they sowed', i think in that article Astronuc linked.
I'd say both left and right manufacture discontent aplenty

The opposite of Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter is not Thom Hartman and Noam Chomsky , they're all extreme poop-stirrers
the opposite of extremist is , to borrow Eric Hoffer's phrase, a gentle cynic who doesn't really care

we have two generations now raised on dissent.
60's seem to me like yesterday... I think i'll just enjoy the fracas !

 

[WWGD]

Not Much if anything. he has a business background so he has to have some clue as to basic security but how it applies to a nation I'd be very surprised if he could form a coherent statement on it

As much as I dislike him, still, he only needs to have a knowledgeable advisor in that area and does not to be an expert himself.

 

[Bystander]

how much anger

60's seem to me like yesterday

"Anger?" Or just the usual infantile temper tantrums from both extremes?

 

[dragoneyes001]

As much as I dislike him, still, he only needs to have a knowledgeable advisor in that area and does not to be an expert himself.

problem with Trump in that regard is would he be able to make intelligent responses to a good adviser?

if his track record like the miss america pageant fiasco is any indication i'd say its unlikely.

 

[Dembadon]

As much as I dislike him, still, he only needs to have a knowledgeable advisor in that area and does not to be an expert himself.

One should actually get input from more than one advisor. If one gets three different opinions, how does one evaluate them without sufficient knowledge? Of course expert knowledge isn't necessary, but one needs enough knowledge to weight the options and make an intelligent decision.

 

[WWGD]

One should actually get input from more than one advisor. If one gets three different opinions, how does one evaluate them without sufficient knowledge? Of course expert knowledge isn't necessary, but one needs enough knowledge to weight the options and make an intelligent decision.

Agree, good points.

Trying to be fair with Trump, I do respect his stance on Planned Parenthood, but seeing his attacks at other candidates (like those at Bush and at Paul) and seeing him describe the bible as (paraphrase) being so much better than any of the books he has written http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-trump-reveals-his-two-favorite-books-and-theyre-simultaneously-surprising-and-not-surprising/
make him look like your everyday mainstream politician. Maybe he is being sucked into the establishment way of thinking like I imagine many formerly idealistic , authentic politicians have been. Too much pressure to conform.

 

[William White]

Of course he has to praise the bible.

he's wants to run for office in one of the most religiously conservative nations on Earth (where a sizable chunk can only be desribed as fundamentalist)

How many out atheists are there in congress?

 

[Astronuc]

Matt Bai on Trump's appeal - Trumpmania?
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-myth-of-trumps-angry-legions-trumpmania-may-126536356526.html

 

[phinds]

Wanna bet some money?

The Republicans might be nutso enough to nominate him, but I've got $1,000 that says he won't be president. Even odds and we'll get Greg to hold the money.

Well, @celluri, are you going to put your money where your mouth is or were you just blowing hot air?

 

[StatGuy2000]

Wanna bet some money?

Absolutely. I am willing to bet $100 that Trump will not be elected President (he may end up winning the nomination, although I think even with his current poll numbers that this is highly unlikely -- Trump is enjoying current highs in popularity as a protest against supposed safe candidates, much like Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich did back in the previous Republican presidential nomination race, but will ultimately flame out like those other two).

BTW, I'm not exactly sure how we'll agree to collect the money depending on who wins the bet.

[As an aside, I'm not a gambling man, so I never bet more than $100 on anything.]

 

[phinds]

[As an aside, I'm not a gambling man, so I never bet more than $100 on anything.]

Neither am I. This is not a gamble, it a sure way to double your money in less than a year. Very good deal. Now if cellurl would just stand up for what he said. I expect him to wimp out.

 

[Astronuc]

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is outlining a foreign policy
http://news.yahoo.com/trump-wants-money-mideast-countries-supported-us-130027587.html

Well, at least it's a start.Donald Trump discussed on NBC's Meet the Press
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/compressed-donald-trumps-run-for-president-506208323567

 

[Astronuc]

Trump providing some details - https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trump-deport-criminal-aliens-126838527651.html

According to a Fox News national poll released Sunday, Trump (25 percent) has a 13-point lead over Ben Carson (12 percent) among likely Republican primary and caucus voters:

• Donald Trump - 25%
• Ben Carson - 12%
• Ted Cruz - 10%
• Jeb Bush - 9%
• Mike Huckabee - 6%
• Scott Walker - 6%
• Carly Fiorina - 5%
• John Kasich - 4%
• Marco Rubio - 4%
• Rand Paul - 3%
• Chris Christie - 3%
• Rick Santorum - 1%
• Rick Perry - 1%
• Bobby Jindal - 1%
• George Pataki - 1%

 

[Bystander]

Brings up the question, "What percentage of the voting population is 'the likely primary and caucus voting/participation' group?"

 

[Evo]

thread's open

 

[phinds]

thread's open

Again? Sigh.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

Is it me or are post being deleted?

 

[Evo]

Is it me or are post being deleted?

Posts that do not meet guidelines will be deleted, which I recently reminded people of. Rules for posting in Current Events are here https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/must-read-current-events-guidelines.113181/

No one should post without first reading the rules, and remember that certain sub-forums have additional rules, these will be pinned at the top of that sub-forum.

 

[Finny]

I was banned for a week for using unacceptable sources. It seems others may have been also since this thread was closed? When you are banned, you get no access whatsoever, and without mention in warnings of what source was deemed unacceptable, its really tough to tell what's 'bad'. Can any mentor post which sources that have been used are deemed unacceptable?

Anyway, I wanted to link to Donald Trump's own website so interested participants can see for themselves his stated position on immigration: as who pays for a border fence, and Trump's stated reasons for a number of his positions. I think this position paper was posted over the weekend?? There is no date on it.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

As I understand it, this is Trump's first detailed position paper.

I decided to read Trump's paper myself because of what I thought was doubtful reporting in the Washington Post. The Post reports Trumps position as illegal immigrants money being sent back home would be 'seized'; Trump's paper states "... Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages...

So what Trump is proposing is temporarily cutting off a major source Mexican income and so putting pressure on the Mexican Government.

 

[WWGD]

< Snip>

I decided to read Trump's paper myself because of what I thought was doubtful reporting in the Washington Post. The Post reports Trumps position as illegal immigrants money being sent back home would be 'seized'; Trump's paper states "... Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages...

So what Trump is proposing is temporarily cutting off a major source Mexican income and so putting pressure on the Mexican Government.

Major source? Mexican GDP is $1.8 trillion (World Almanac & Book of Facts 2015, p. 804) . I doubt the remittances amount to much more than 1% of this :http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/11/14/2-remittance-trends/ Hardly a chokehold. Besides, I don't see how this is technically feasible. What Trump and others ignore is, first , net Mexican flow is negative, second, Mexicans crossing are win-win situation, providing workers when needed and returning when not. Trump also neglects the fact that the illegal criminals caught may have not have arrived at the U.S by coming illegally across the border; there are other ways of coming into the country, including legal ones. A weak , superficial case at best.

But hey, Trump is a keen strategist, uneducated Mexicans do not have a powerful lobby
so they do make for good scapegoats. Maybe Trump should do actual research instead of just
watching schlock TV like "Border Wars" --whatever gets Nat Geo ratings.

 

[Finny]

A weak , superficial case at best.

Oddly, for reasons I don't fully understand, Bernie Sanders,Trump and I agree on open borders...see my post #189.

 

[russ_watters]

What Trump and others ignore is, first , net Mexican flow is negative...

Please explain the relevance of that fact.

... Mexicans crossing are win-win situation, providing workers when needed and returning when not.

Surely, you don't think ALL of them fall into that category?

 

[mheslep]

Mexicans crossing are win-win situation,

In the larger picture, how can any sovereign nation exist with no borders, the implication of crossing is a "win-win"? In particular:

...The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about 55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal year 2009 (the most recent data available), ...

Based on our random sample, GAO estimates that the criminal aliens had an average of 7 arrests, ... and about 50 percent were arrested at least once for a drug offense. Immigration, drugs, and traffic violations accounted for about 50 percent of arrest offenses.
...
GAO estimates that costs to incarcerate criminal aliens in federal prisons and SCAAP reimbursements to states and localities ranged from about $1.5 billion to $1.6 billion annually from fiscal years 2005 through 2009

Blanket apologetics for the status quo are the reason a showman like Trump gains center stage in my opinion. The apologists dismiss all bad aspects of illegal immigration. Objective observation of some harm is met with condescension and labeled as attack of the proletariat on the poor and defenseless.

 

[WWGD]

In the larger picture, how can any sovereign nation exist with no borders, the implication of crossing is a "win-win"? In particular:
Blanket apologetics for the status quo are the reason a showman like Trump gains center stage in my opinion. The apologists dismiss all bad aspects of illegal immigration. Objective observation of some harm is met with condescension and labeled as attack of the proletariat on the poor and defenseless.

There is no evidence that those criminals came illegally through the borders. Many other ways to come in and commit crimes, many of those ways legal.

 

[WWGD]

Please explain the relevance of that fact.

Surely, you don't think ALL of them fall into that category?

No, of course not, what I mean is the situation, as a whole, is win-win: seasonal workers come in when in demand and return to Mexico otherwise. No reasons to believe that the criminals came in through the borders, since there are many other ways, many of them legal, to enter the country and commit crimes.

Net inflow is close to zero : http://www.propublica.org/article/the-new-border-illegal-immigrations-shifting-frontier and I don't see any reason to believe many of those coming in are criminals. Many are fleeing war zones resulting partly on gangs sent back home from the U.S to countries where police forces lack the resources to fight them, so the gangs have taken control of a good chunk of these countries. Now, I posted a link in a previous post to the effect that the murder rate in many of these countries is more than 20x the rate in the U.S. Why is this never mentioned by Trump and those denouncing illegal immigrants? Do you expect them to file petitions for asylum, wait a few years and see their families get killed? I don't suggest open borders, but there is plenty of wiggle room between open borders and a wall. My goal is to bring this issue into the discussion.

 

[russ_watters]

No, of course not, what I mean is the situation, as a whole, is win-win: seasonal workers come in when in demand and return to Mexico otherwise.

But as pointed-out, that isn't the "whole" of the immigration issue and you are ignoring known downsides by downplaying them to nothingness. There are about half a dozen separate issues in immigration, so this claim of yours that that one aspect makes the whole issue win-win is, frankly, bizarre.

No reasons to believe that the criminals came in through the borders, since there are many other ways, many of them legal, to enter the country and commit crimes.

What? By definition, isn't that the only way to enter/exit a country?

[snip]...I don't see any reason to believe many of those coming in are criminals.

mheslep provided statistics for you, to which you responded:

There is no evidence that those criminals came illegally through the borders.

1. There is no other way to enter but through the border.

2. Illegal and legal immigrants committing crimes (beyond the crime of entering illegally) can be regarded as separate issues, with potentially separate solutions. My short position is that our prisons should not contain any non-citizen, non-permanent resident immigrants: they should be deported. But I'm not sure if mheslep's statistics slice that.

Now, I posted a link in a previous post to the effect that the murder rate in many of these countries is more than 20x the rate in the U.S. Why is this never mentioned by Trump and those denouncing illegal immigrants?

Why do you find it relevant?

Do you expect them to file petitions for asylum, wait a few years and see their families get killed? I don't suggest open borders, but there is plenty of wiggle room between open borders and a wall. My goal is to bring this issue into the discussion.

It doesn't sound to me like you are suggesting wiggle room, but please specify what wiggle room, exactly, you see?

Net inflow is close to zero : http://www.propublica.org/article/the-new-border-illegal-immigrations-shifting-frontier

In my previous post, I asked you why you find that relevant. Please answer.

 

[WWGD]

What I mean is that someone may have come in by plane , over stayed , maybe arrived through Canada, arrive legally , and committed crimes etc. and did not necessarily arrive illegally through the Mexican border, which is what Trump seems to be implying. My issue with Trump is his bringing up only the negative aspects, however accurate and ignoring much of the context. Doing this tends to attract negative attention against a subgroup.

 

[WWGD]

But as pointed-out, that isn't the "whole" of the immigration issue and you are ignoring known downsides by downplaying them to nothingness. There are about half a dozen separate issues in immigration, so this claim of yours that that one aspect makes the whole issue win-win is, frankly, bizarre.

What? By definition, isn't that the only way to enter/exit a country?

mheslep provided statistics for you, to which you responded:

1. There is no other way to enter but through the border.

2. Illegal and legal immigrants committing crimes (beyond the crime of entering illegally) can be regarded as separate issues, with potentially separate solutions. My short position is that our prisons should not contain any non-citizen, non-permanent resident immigrants: they should be deported. But I'm not sure if mheslep's statistics slice that.

Why do you find it relevant?

It doesn't sound to me like you are suggesting wiggle room, but please specify what wiggle room, exactly, you see?

In my previous post, I asked you why you find that relevant. Please answer.

OK, This is a lot, let me address a few and the rest later.

For 1, I am referring to the Mexican border. Trump seems to be suggesting it is the main source of alien criminals. Alien criminals may arrive legally in many other ways and then commit their crimes. I think this deserves support by Trump.

What I am suggesting is that, when making accusations against a group , it may be a good idea to provide some context , that is all. I was trying to do just that , since I did not see anything other than misdeeds and unsupported statements attributed to people entering illegally.

 

[Finny]

Doing this tends to attract negative attention against a subgroup.

You mean like calling criminals, criminals.

Illegals are by definition breaking US laws

Trump seems to be suggesting it {southern border} is the main source of alien criminals.

I posted statistics from several sources showing that is the situation. You refuse to accept facts and are consequently befuddled.

We do let in over a million legal immigrants via green cards annually. Hopefully someone checks them for crimes in their home country first, but with this administration who knows?

.

 

[WWGD]

You mean like calling criminals, criminals.

Illegals are by definition breaking US laws
I posted statistics from several sources showing that is the situation. You refuse to accept facts and are consequently befuddled.

We do let in over a million legal immigrants via green cards annually. Hopefully someone checks them for crimes in their home country first, but with this administration who knows?

.

2 EDITS
No, I think you are misunderstanding me. The group in question is immigrants. If you lived in a war zone, would you wait for many years to go through the official channels, or would you do whatever it takes to survive? If someone tries to cross the border illegally running away from a murder rate of 677 per 6 million in El Salvador (this is in June 2015 alone. See last Time magazine for a source), are they criminals? I am trying to create some context here and not automatically endorse anything nor everything illegal border-crossers do. And Trump did not do that. Besides, Trump was referring to Mexicans coming in , when this is not accurate since, as a whole, Mexicans are returning to Mexico , i.e., the net flow to Mexico is negative (see my sources in a previous post). So he does not have his facts straight. And my claim is that the crimes were not _necessarily_ committed by those entering through the Mexican border illegally, which is what Trump stated.