POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[flere-imsaho]

I don't throw around this term lightly, but that's pure genius.

[mckerney]

House Benghazi Report Finds No New Evidence of Wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton - The New York Times

Who knows if they'll find something in the 9th investigation though.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by mckerney

House Benghazi Report Finds No New Evidence of Wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton - The New York Times

Who knows if they'll find something in the 9th investigation though.

I'm sure Trump will find something in there no one else has and continue his attack on Clinton just like he still does on Obama's birth records.

[Dutch]

I hear it was somebody else's fault.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

I'm sure Trump will find something in there no one else has and continue his attack on Clinton just like he still does on Obama's birth records.

Trump is completely unfit to be the President of the United States. But you say this like his "musings" on Benghazi and Obama's birth certificate aren't for one purpose only... to win over voters and become president. And sadly it's working.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by panerd

Trump is completely unfit to be the President of the United States. But you say this like his "musings" on Benghazi and Obama's birth certificate aren't for one purpose only... to win over voters and become president. And sadly it's working.

don't count your chickens...er votes.

[mckerney]

If he's going to have Mexico pay for the wall, why not have Britain pay for his campaign?

UK Pols To Trump: Stop Clogging Our Inboxes With Your 'Intemperate Spam'!

Donald Trump's first foray into email fundraising is not off to the greatest start.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee was hesitant to fundraise before his paltry May fundraising statistics were publicized this month, but now it seems the Trump campaign is overcompensating by sending fundraising emails overseas.

Numerous members of the British parliament have complained that they have received multiple emails from the Trump campaign asking for a donation.

[JPhillips]

Trump is sending fundraising emails to parliamentarians all over the globe.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...or-derp-update

[Thomkal]

so its okay to say you want to build a wall and keep foreigners out of the country, but you will take money from them?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

so its okay to say you want to build a wall and keep foreigners out of the country, but you will take money from them?

To be fair, I'm pretty sure he hates Mexicans more than white Europeans.

[JPhillips]

I can't imagine he's stupid enough to knowingly solicit from high profile foreigners, but who knows with Trump's people. So much of his campaign is entirely inexplicable.

[nol]

Originally Posted by panerd

Trump is completely unfit to be the President of the United States. But you say this like his "musings" on Benghazi and Obama's birth certificate aren't for one purpose only... to win over voters and become president. And sadly it's working.

I'm pretty sure the presidency is just gravy for him at this point. This past year has to have done wonders for his brand.

[flere-imsaho]

I thought fundraising outside of U.S. borders was illegal? Didn't McCain get crap for doing a quasi-fundraiser in Toronto in 2008?

[JPhillips]

It is, which is why I assume there's no way this was done purposefully.

[RainMaker]

Isn't it likely to just be an e-mail list that has some people overseas on it? Like a RNC newsletter or something?

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by molson

To be fair, I'm pretty sure he hates Mexicans more than white Europeans.

yes I guess its okay if he gets it from white people.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Isn't it likely to just be an e-mail list that has some people overseas on it? Like a RNC newsletter or something?

I'm sure it's a purchased list, but apparently it has almost every member of at least these four foreign parliaments. That seems unlikely to just be an RNC list.

[ISiddiqui]

538's General Election Forecast page just went up:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...tion-forecast/

As of today, Clinton has an 80.6% change of winning the Presidency on a polls-only based forecast.

[Edward64]

Won't stop the diehards but should mute some GOP.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politi...iew/index.html

The sister of the U.S. ambassador to Libya killed in Benghazi said she doesn't blame Hillary Clinton for Chris Stevens' death, instead pointing to Congress for under-budgeting the State Department.

"I do not blame Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta (for Stevens' death). They were balancing security efforts at embassies and missions around the world," Dr. Anne Stevens, who has acted as a spokesperson for the family, said in an interview with the New Yorker published Tuesday.
:
"But what was the underlying cause? Perhaps if Congress had provided a budget to increase security for all missions around the world, then some of the requests for more security in Libya would have been granted. Certainly the State Department is underbudgeted," she added. "I would love to hear they are drastically increasing the budget."
:
She said Stevens also had a high opinion of then-secretary of state Clinton, saying "I know he had a lot of respect for Secretary Clinton. He admired her ability to intensely read the issues and understand the whole picture."

Asked if she thought it was fair to make Benghazi an issue in the 2016 presidential election, Stevens said "to use Chris's death as a political point -- is not appropriate."

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

538's General Election Forecast page just went up:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...tion-forecast/

As of today, Clinton has an 80.6% change of winning the Presidency on a polls-only based forecast.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that MS will not be one of the closest races come November.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

[NobodyHere]

nice!

[NobodyHere]

[Dutch]

Why do we have these massive "walls" for people who fly into our country? Are those dumb ideas too? Why does Mexico have strict customs and border security at their airports? What's the difference?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Why do we have these massive "walls" for people who fly into our country? Are those dumb ideas too? Why does Mexico have strict customs and border security at their airports? What's the difference?

Drugs?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Why do we have these massive "walls" for people who fly into our country? Are those dumb ideas too? Why does Mexico have strict customs and border security at their airports? What's the difference?

If we can trust all of the illegal entries to tell us the exaxt time and date they want to cross and funnel into one area and play nicely with our checkpoint it would be the same.

[Dutch]

Borders exist for a reason. The USA belongs to Americans. We own it, outsiders don't. They want in? Great!, now follow the rules like immigrants do. You can't just get on a plane and go live wherever you want either, which is the point I'm making. That's why we have such things that are globally recognized like passports and visas. This isn't really that hard to follow logically, just depends if you want to or not.

[flere-imsaho]

Does anyone really disagree with you, Dutch?

I think you're trying to make an argument that people want open borders, when in reality the argument is that people are doubting the efficacy (or maybe ROI) of a trillion-dollar-wall.

Plus, there's the law of unintended consequences in play, here. Yes, illegal aliens are breaking the law. Fine. I think we can all agree with that. Unfortunately, at the same time several industries rely almost completely on their labor and it has been shown time and again that that labor pool can't be replaced. Before you start an aggressive deportation program, could you outline a plan to make sure that those industries don't completely crater in the process?

No one on the Trump side has ever addressed this. Which is richly ironic given that Trump's business empire almost certainly depends on a lot of this labor (i.e. restaurants, cleaners, etc...).

[Edward64]

I support the concept of the Wall. Keep in mind I'm pretty sure my vote is going Democratic this year but there are issues I lean more towards the Trump vs Hillary/Bernie rhetoric.

I don't really know how Trump plans to build, pay, manage etc. but that's because I know it (and he) is half baked. That doesn't mean that vision is not feasible or that we shouldn't consider it.

The border is a mess and has been as far back as I can remember. Build a wall, reform immigration laws (and really mean it), control the southern border/waters, allow labor to come in an organized/orderly manner etc. For those who break the rules, make sure they lose their chance to come back in.

Sure reform can happen without the wall. But it hasn't (or at least not been successful) and likely won't without drastically changing the current dynamic. A wall will show we are serious.

(and we know Winter is coming ... okay, wrong direction)

[JPhillips]

When will the inevitable, "Trump hired illegals" story break?

[nol]

Originally Posted by Edward64

A wall will show we are serious.

You sure about that? From my vantage point, spending a trillion dollars on a wall only for people to still find a way to get into America would be a pretty great way to make us look like a joke.

[Edward64]

I don't deny it could fail without the proper execution. But yeah, it'll show people its serious.

BTW, where are you getting the $1T number?

[nol]

Let's put it this way: it will cost enough that even Donald Trump does not think it would be a worthy investment for the American government to make.

The number for me comes from multiplying the cost it would take to build just a continuous fence along the border (about $20-25 billion) by what it would take to build a YUGE, classy wall along those 2,000 miles and then adding in the costs of constantly patrolling and maintaining the wall. And then I guess you could account for the fact that the manpower used to build, patrol, and maintain the wall could be instead used for other things, and that's even before considering the aforementioned drastic effects such a wall would have on industries our country relies on.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by nol

Let's put it this way: it will cost enough that even Donald Trump does not think it would be a worthy investment for the American government to make.

The number for me comes from multiplying the cost it would take to build just a continuous fence along the border (about $20-25 billion) by what it would take to build a YUGE, classy wall along those 2,000 miles and then adding in the costs of constantly patrolling and maintaining the wall. And then I guess you could account for the fact that the manpower used to build, patrol, and maintain the wall could be instead used for other things, and that's even before considering the aforementioned drastic effects such a wall would have on industries our country relies on.

I'd much more favor putting the full power of the military to use in actually defending our borders from the constant assault they're under but, failing that, I can think of few (if any) better uses of the money & manpower you described.

Whatever it takes.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Borders exist for a reason. The USA belongs to Americans. We own it, outsiders don't. They want in? Great!, now follow the rules like immigrants do. You can't just get on a plane and go live wherever you want either, which is the point I'm making. That's why we have such things that are globally recognized like passports and visas. This isn't really that hard to follow logically, just depends if you want to or not.

The concept of "America for Americans" is not a new one, nor is it one with which many in the middle and on the left would necessarily disagree.

The issue is, and has been for a century, twofold:

1) who gets to play gatekeeper? Immigration policy was explicitly changed in the first half of the 20th century to exclude particular groups from being eligible for citizenship or even eligible to immigrate (never mind to naturalize). Hell, up to the end of the Civil War, citizenship was reserved to "free white males," and even once the 13th-15th Amendments opened that up to emancipated blacks, by the start of the 20th century, immigration policy still targeted the exclusion of Asians and Eastern Europeans. Not much is different these days; it's just that instead of Asians and Eastern Europeans, the targeted groups are Latin American and Muslim refugees.

2) The solution on the right is generally "kick the illegals out and lock the door behind them," but it's not quite that simple. Many illegal immigrants didn't come here illegally; they STAYED here illegally. Some of them had children here, which the courts have consistently held confers citizenship upon those children. That means any effort at mass deportation, however successful, cannot help but have significant negative effects on American citizens. Even ignoring the impact to the economy, you're talking about either deporting American citizens to keep them with their parents ("and they can come back when they're 18," ignoring the differences in health care and education and what that might mean for their adult productivity as American citizens) or breaking up families, with all of the concomitant trauma that brings for children.

Hell, even the terrorism angle, suggesting that we'd be safer if we just closed the borders, doesn't really fly (er, given what's coming, pun most definitely not intended). The 9/11 hijackers were all in the country legally on various visas. Maybe more stringent vetting of visa applicants might have caught them before they entered the country, but building a wall wouldn't have.

The bottom line is that illegal immigration is often a function of desperation; maybe they're fleeing political violence in their homelands; maybe the economy is shit and they're looking for a better life; maybe it's as simple as 'stay and starve, or go where there's food.' The way you stop desperate people is to address the causes that make them desperate. Building a wall doesn't do that. It just makes them MORE desperate because they see the door closing.

Originally Posted by Edward64

I support the concept of the Wall. Keep in mind I'm pretty sure my vote is going Democratic this year but there are issues I lean more towards the Trump vs Hillary/Bernie rhetoric.

Maybe you should focus on the concept of fixing the immigration system. The Wall is a great rhetorical device, but it wouldn't actually amount to much.

I don't really know how Trump plans to build, pay, manage etc. but that's because I know it (and he) is half baked. That doesn't mean that vision is not feasible or that we shouldn't consider it.

But it isn't feasible. Building the wall is actually probably the least problematic part of the entire endeavor. Paying for it is going to be an issue, enforcing it is going to be a massive headache. Look, walls have been tried as border enforcement for thousands of years; the reason we remember them is because they DID. NOT. WORK. They sure look pretty as historical artifacts, though.

Hell, even when it's been done explicitly to defend national sovereignty against an aggressive neighbor, it hasn't worked the way it was envisioned. Ask the French how well the Maginot Line did to keep the Germans out.

You want to reduce illegal immigration? Creating a big scary wall and punishing those who get caught isn't going to do it. People who immigrate illegally do so largely out of desperation, and the prospect of future punitive measures doesn't measure up well against current desperation.

The border is a mess and has been as far back as I can remember. Build a wall, reform immigration laws (and really mean it), control the southern border/waters, allow labor to come in an organized/orderly manner etc. For those who break the rules, make sure they lose their chance to come back in.

Immigration reform, border control, and immigrant labor reform are all a part of the solution. A wall isn't. The only return on that investment is mental masturbation for those who want a Fortress Amerika. Unless you deal with the causes of desperation for those who come here illegally, all you're going to do is drive them further underground (maybe literally).

Sure reform can happen without the wall. But it hasn't (or at least not been successful) and likely won't without drastically changing the current dynamic. A wall will show we are serious.

A wall will show that you're willing to waste a trillion dollars to send a message, but it won't actually do much to back up how Very Serious You Are. There's money in human smuggling, and where there's money, people will find a way. So rather than focusing on a big fancy wall, figure out a way to make "home" look more attractive to desperate people than "that country hundreds of miles away that speaks a different language but might enable me to feed my family."

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd much more favor putting the full power of the military to use in actually defending our borders from the constant assault they're under but, failing that, I can think of few (if any) better uses of the money & manpower you described.

Whatever it takes.

Yes, yes, Jon. We all know that you're a fascist. When Lady Liberty says "the wretched refuse of your teeming shore," what you hear is "TARGET PRACTICE!"

We all know that. Maybe go shoot some shit in Fallout and come back when you're ready to offer some input on how to solve the problem that doesn't involve "shoot the brown people," k?

[flere-imsaho]

And yet again, all we're talking about is the wall. How about someone answer this question:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Plus, there's the law of unintended consequences in play, here. Yes, illegal aliens are breaking the law. Fine. I think we can all agree with that. Unfortunately, at the same time several industries rely almost completely on their labor and it has been shown time and again that that labor pool can't be replaced. Before you start an aggressive deportation program, could you outline a plan to make sure that those industries don't completely crater in the process?

If there isn't a solution for this before a Trumpian plan of Wall + mass deportations is put into effect, the impact on multiple industries will almost certainly slide the country into recession. We're OK with this?

[cuervo72]

If Brexit is any indication, some may be.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

If Brexit is any indication, some may be.

What indication did Brexit give?

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd much more favor putting the full power of the military to use in actually defending our borders from the constant assault they're under but, failing that, I can think of few (if any) better uses of the money & manpower you described.

Whatever it takes.

About half of the illegals in the US are here on overstayed visas. Are you going to have the military round them up as well?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The concept of "America for Americans" is not a new one, nor is it one with which many in the middle and on the left would necessarily disagree.

The issue is, and has been for a century, twofold:

1) who gets to play gatekeeper? Immigration policy was explicitly changed in the first half of the 20th century to exclude particular groups from being eligible for citizenship or even eligible to immigrate (never mind to naturalize). Hell, up to the end of the Civil War, citizenship was reserved to "free white males," and even once the 13th-15th Amendments opened that up to emancipated blacks, by the start of the 20th century, immigration policy still targeted the exclusion of Asians and Eastern Europeans. Not much is different these days; it's just that instead of Asians and Eastern Europeans, the targeted groups are Latin American and Muslim refugees.

Sure there's been injustices, no doubt. I think policy of legal immigration can be improved but our southern border is a mess. Just want to fix/improve it. Again, not saying Trumps plan (or what little he is divulged) is the right thing to do but my position is there is merit to the Wall.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

2) The solution on the right is generally "kick the illegals out and lock the door behind them," but it's not quite that simple. Many illegal immigrants didn't come here illegally; they STAYED here illegally. Some of them had children here, which the courts have consistently held confers citizenship upon those children. That means any effort at mass deportation, however successful, cannot help but have significant negative effects on American citizens. Even ignoring the impact to the economy, you're talking about either deporting American citizens to keep them with their parents ("and they can come back when they're 18," ignoring the differences in health care and education and what that might mean for their adult productivity as American citizens) or breaking up families, with all of the concomitant trauma that brings for children.

Possibly congress should change the birthright assumption but you are right that the as-is with current illegals with US children is a mess. Maybe start with the illegals without the US kids and then progress from there?

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Hell, even the terrorism angle, suggesting that we'd be safer if we just closed the borders, doesn't really fly (er, given what's coming, pun most definitely not intended). The 9/11 hijackers were all in the country legally on various visas. Maybe more stringent vetting of visa applicants might have caught them before they entered the country, but building a wall wouldn't have.

... and there are home grown terrorists so I get your point. However, to me the terrorism issue is a separate thing and don't claim with Wall will stop that. I'm talking about broader issue of illegals.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The bottom line is that illegal immigration is often a function of desperation; maybe they're fleeing political violence in their homelands; maybe the economy is shit and they're looking for a better life; maybe it's as simple as 'stay and starve, or go where there's food.' The way you stop desperate people is to address the causes that make them desperate. Building a wall doesn't do that. It just makes them MORE desperate because they see the door closing.

I do think building a Wall will slow it down but you are right, if a Wall is built, there needs to be other measures to complement it.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Maybe you should focus on the concept of fixing the immigration system. The Wall is a great rhetorical device, but it wouldn't actually amount to much.

I don't see why you don't think the Wall will slow down illegals. It's obvious to me that it will. But yes, immigration reform and other measures also need to be done.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

But it isn't feasible. Building the wall is actually probably the least problematic part of the entire endeavor. Paying for it is going to be an issue, enforcing it is going to be a massive headache. Look, walls have been tried as border enforcement for thousands of years; the reason we remember them is because they DID. NOT. WORK. They sure look pretty as historical artifacts, though.

Hell, even when it's been done explicitly to defend national sovereignty against an aggressive neighbor, it hasn't worked the way it was envisioned. Ask the French how well the Maginot Line did to keep the Germans out.

I do agree that I don't see a big deal in building the Wall. It can be done. Its the execution of what needs to be done after the wall is built is that going to be challenging.

The wall that Israel built seemed to have stopped alot of the terrorism activity albeit with a cost to innocent Palestinians.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

You want to reduce illegal immigration? Creating a big scary wall and punishing those who get caught isn't going to do it. People who immigrate illegally do so largely out of desperation, and the prospect of future punitive measures doesn't measure up well against current desperation.

Immigration reform, border control, and immigrant labor reform are all a part of the solution. A wall isn't. The only return on that investment is mental masturbation for those who want a Fortress Amerika. Unless you deal with the causes of desperation for those who come here illegally, all you're going to do is drive them further underground (maybe literally).

Yup, agree that a wall by itself won't do it. It needs to be supplemented by immigration reform, border control etc.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

A wall will show that you're willing to waste a trillion dollars to send a message, but it won't actually do much to back up how Very Serious You Are. There's money in human smuggling, and where there's money, people will find a way. So rather than focusing on a big fancy wall, figure out a way to make "home" look more attractive to desperate people than "that country hundreds of miles away that speaks a different language but might enable me to feed my family."

I dispute the $1T number. The actual building of the wall won't cost $1T. Sure the wall won't be 100% or even 80% but I'll take something over pure rhetoric right now and the act of passing legislation and "building" the Wall show the resolve (or at least more so than now).

I do think there is alot of debate and angst on this thread because there are alot of unknowns about the Wall, how Trump plans on financing, building and enforcing, what to do with existing illegals, how to reduce the flow by improving the situation in the south etc. I don't have all the answers but my position is a Wall is a good step to reduce the flow.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

And yet again, all we're talking about is the wall. How about someone answer this question:

If there isn't a solution for this before a Trumpian plan of Wall + mass deportations is put into effect, the impact on multiple industries will almost certainly slide the country into recession. We're OK with this?

I suspect even if there is a plan (e.g. the guest worker program), the US economy will take a hit. However, it will adapt and it will recover as it always does. But yes, I'm personally okay with a short term hit to reduce illegals.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by nol

Let's put it this way: it will cost enough that even Donald Trump does not think it would be a worthy investment for the American government to make.

The number for me comes from multiplying the cost it would take to build just a continuous fence along the border (about $20-25 billion) by what it would take to build a YUGE, classy wall along those 2,000 miles and then adding in the costs of constantly patrolling and maintaining the wall. And then I guess you could account for the fact that the manpower used to build, patrol, and maintain the wall could be instead used for other things, and that's even before considering the aforementioned drastic effects such a wall would have on industries our country relies on.

Okay, I get where you are getting the est $1T. I would still like to see if there are any objective analysis of

1) cost of building the wall
2) cost to execute the enforcement/policies etc. with the wall
3) impact to economy
4) etc.

minus

5) cost of current enforcement/policies
6) cost of illegals in the country
7) etc.

I don't know all the possibly parameters but the idea is a holistic cost/benefit analysis.

With that said, I suspect even if there was an analysis, much of it would be swags and conjectures and both sides will still finds things to disagree on.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You can't just get on a plane and go live wherever you want either, which is the point I'm making. That's why we have such things that are globally recognized like passports and visas. This isn't really that hard to follow logically, just depends if you want to or not.

Half of illegal immigrants in the U.S. did exactly this. They traveled to the U.S. legally and overstayed their visas.

[Dutch]

That's 5.5 million people that are doing something illegal? Maybe we should have our government fix that.

[JPhillips]

How and at what cost do you track 5.5 million people?

And it will actually be millions more than that because how do you know which tourists/students/workers will stay too long?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How and at what cost do you track 5.5 million people?

And it will actually be millions more than that because how do you know which tourists/students/workers will stay too long?

Interesting. Why do you think it's even important go through that paper work drill if you don't want it enforced?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

About half of the illegals in the US are here on overstayed visas. Are you going to have the military round them up as well?

By any means necessary.

*Though that was not be the most efficient means for that task, by any stretch of the imagination. It's outside the scope of their primary training. Gosh, if only we had some other federal agency that would be better for the ... oh, wait.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Interesting. Why do you think it's even important go through that paper work drill if you don't want it enforced?

My guess is that it's about checking upon entry and providing a little security theatre that most people will then obey.

But you dodged the question. How and at what cost will you keep people from overstaying visas?

[JPhillips]

I just read a report that claims Chinese tourists will be around 100 million a year by the end of the decade. How do you possibly track everybody so that nobody overstays their visa?