TRUMP: Whats the real deal?

[Herzog]

Here's why I like Trump and I'm trusting the "plan".

Today there was an on air House testimony against the Clinton Foundation by two whistleblowers who worked for the foundation and they haven't been arkancided yet. We also were notified in that testimony that there's an ongoing investigation by Huber. That's quite BIG.

Relevant from that testimony:

-----
"The Foundation began acting as an agent of foreign governments early in its life and has continued doing so throughout its existence. As such, the Foundation should have registered under FARA. Ultimately the Foundation and its auditors conceded this fact and conceded in formal submissions that it did operate as an agent.

Therefore, the Foundation is not entitled to 501c3 tax exemption privileges as outlined in IRS 170-c2.

The Clinton Foundation did not comply with the requirements of 501c3 in that it far exceeded the purposes detailed in its original articles of incorporation, filed December 23rd, 1997 and subsequently reaffirmed in numerous other records across many jurisdictions, including with NARA. The Foundation did pursue programs and activities for which it had neither sought nor achieved permission to undertake."
----

 

[Pike2350]

Here's why I like Trump and I'm trusting the "plan".

Today there was an on air House testimony against the Clinton Foundation by two whistleblowers who worked for the foundation and they haven't been arkancided yet. We also were notified in that testimony that there's an ongoing investigation by Huber. That's quite BIG.

Relevant from that testimony:

-----
"The Foundation began acting as an agent of foreign governments early in its life and has continued doing so throughout its existence. As such, the Foundation should have registered under FARA. Ultimately the Foundation and its auditors conceded this fact and conceded in formal submissions that it did operate as an agent.

Therefore, the Foundation is not entitled to 501c3 tax exemption privileges as outlined in IRS 170-c2.

The Clinton Foundation did not comply with the requirements of 501c3 in that it far exceeded the purposes detailed in its original articles of incorporation, filed December 23rd, 1997 and subsequently reaffirmed in numerous other records across many jurisdictions, including with NARA. The Foundation did pursue programs and activities for which it had neither sought nor achieved permission to undertake."
----

I get what you are saying.....i really dislike Clintons too. Today it seems that broad dislike for one side somehow ends up equalling liking the other side.

You can dislike Clinton AND Trump. Seeing what Clinton had done and is likely guilty of doesnt make Trump look any better. Hell, Trump has own issues and very well may come to light he actively participated in illegal actions.

Looking at both candidates as wholes, both were better then the other in one shape or form. Would we be better or worse under Clinton? I honestly have no idea. People claim we are better off but we honestly don't know. Since if the fears people had about her may never have come to realization.

Blindly liking what what/who have just because we disliked what/who we could have had isnt the way. He needs ti be scrutinized just as hard as before... even more so now...IMHO

 

[Bart]

Agreed, I dislike Hillary a great deal and couldn't vote for either major party candidate in 2016, and yes, I did vote. It was the worst choice from both parties in election history, IMHO.

 

[Herzog]

You can dislike Clinton AND Trump.

I completely agree and as I stated in my first post in this thread, that's exactly how I was. I absolutely didn't like either one. Trust me when I say, I went through a good bout of cognitive dissonance when I started doing the research and finding out the whole "orange man bad" media push is complete lies. Do the research and have an open mind, you may be surprised.

Blindly liking what what/who have just because we disliked what/who we could have had isnt the way.

I do not blindly like trump. I would say it's actually the other way around; people blindly hate trump because they are told to. Like I said, time will tell. I'm not here to make people like him, that's not my job. I'm just saying there's a WHOLE lot more to the story.

 

[Cody]

I blindly hate partisan politics.

 

[Herzog]

I blindly hate partisan politics.

I love partisan politics.

 

[Houndoc]

Post above needs to reference and facts to support it. I won't trust a pretty picture alone (although great if it is correct, no one will defend human trafficking.)

I was asked to clarify my position on immigration. Happy to do so.

In general, for decades legal immigration has been based on one of a handful of options. 1) marriage to a citizen 2) sponsored by a citizen family member (now derided as "chain migration" and very misrepresented. Had my wife chose to petition for her siblings after she gained citizenship they could have applied to immigrate after a 20 year wait) 3) Job specific visa (tied to a specific job) 4) refugee/asylum- not really the same thing but will put them together here 5)lottery system where specific countries have set number of slots available and applicants are selected at random from those who have applied and passed required background check.

Keep in mind with everyone of those options full background checks and processes are followed and the process is far from simple.

This leaves very little options for your 'average' worker who seeks a better future in the US. In reality, I think for most of us that is the very class of people that our ancestors would be part of. Now they have no real way to legally enter. This is made worse with the changes passed this year that go away from family and lottery to skills based immigration. A hard worker without advanced degree had more doors closed to them.

Then the facts on effects of immigration are also widely misunderstood. First off, immigrants- legal or not- are eligible for very few federal assistance programs and are legally required to pay taxes. Yet keeping many illegal actual discourages payment of income taxes since more likely to be paid under the table for obvious reasons.

On the impact on jobs, there are more job openings than people actively seeking employment (last numbers I heard have about 2 million extra jobs, covering most all fields but most notable in construction and agriculture- sorry don't have time right now to provide link to the numbers despite my comment above on documenting sources).

Second, this past year the birth rate of US citizens has fallen below the rate required to maintain the current population- in other words, without immigration the US population will begin to decrease. You add that to the already increasing number of retirees compared to workers as baby boomers retire and our economic future is rather bleak.

So the reality is those who claim we can not "afford" immigrants are off base. The economy needs them.

I don't have a answer as to how many are "too many". But fact is they come, legally or not (40%+ by over staying visas, thus not affected by the wall). We need to make a clear path for legal entry for those same individuals.

I also think the skills based plan is wrong. Not sure how "America First" it is to protect low skill, low pay jobs for Americans and encourage immigrants to take the high pay/high skill positions.

But that aside, we never know what an immigrant or their children will accomplish. I had a good friend who arrived in the US as an illiterate, 17 year old war refugee. His first day in class room was as a freshmen at the U after passing the GRE. He went on to earn his PhD, become a college professor and establish several successful business.

So, yes I am very pro-immigration. I love the diversity of my friends and family. Even to realize in something as simple as my Tooele county adult soccer league I have played in games where of the 16 players on the field, we were born on 4 continents and represent over half a dozen countries. that to me is a good thing.

 

[SAMI]

I think the building of a physical wall is pointless. Boost the CBP's budget and ranks (or use the Guard as we are now) to actually patrol the boarder better. Use technology like drones and sensors to help in very remote areas. But yes, we need to secure the southern boarder better and force people to enter through proper channels.

I just about died at the "I'm anti-wall, but we should deploy drones and more humans to police the border and enforce current laws.... " SMDH.... @Stephen

By this logic you'd be ok removing the doors from your home and hiring security guards to ensure people still use the doorbell. Lol

 

[SAMI]

My honest question is if there are laws and such that have been implemented by Trump that have made the economy in America worse? Is anyone personally in a worse place than they were 2 years ago because of changes he made?

To bring this thread back onto original topic.....

For me, no. I am unaware of any laws under the Trump admin that have negatively impacted my wallet. This coming from a guy who works for a US flashlight company that manufactures solely in China.

I didn't vote for Trump, but I would vote for him today if it were required.

 

[Stephen]

I just about died at the "I'm anti-wall, but we should deploy drones and more humans to police the border and enforce current laws.... " SMDH.... @Stephen

By this logic you'd be ok removing the doors from your home and hiring security guards to ensure people still use the doorbell. Lol

So you're saying that a 2000 mile static wall is preferable to a mobile, adaptable force to patrol the border? I'd say that's an illogical use of available resources. Ask the French how that worked out.

 

[SAMI]

So you're saying that a 2000 mile static wall is preferable to a mobile, adaptable force to patrol the border? I'd say that's an illogical use of available resources. Ask the French how that worked out.

I'm all for a patrolling force, patrolling the inner perimeter of a hardened barrier (what some may call a "static wall") lined with Constantine wire. To think that a "mobile" force and a fleet of drones somehow replaces a wall as a deterrent is comical.

The fleet of Q-9's, the program to operate it and the addition of needed staff and equipment to patrol an open border will exceed the cost of the wall.

Build the wall, patrol the wall. Then revamp immigration processes to flow more efficiently. Pretty simple solution if you ask me.

 

[Stephen]

I'm all for a patrolling force, patrolling the inner perimeter of a hardened barrier (what some may call a "static wall") lined with Constantine wire. To think that a "mobile" force and a fleet of drones somehow replaces a wall as a deterrent is comical.

You're saying that throughout human history a "hardened barrier" has always functioned as the most successful deterrent? That's comical.

The fleet of Q-9's, the program to operate it and the addition of needed staff and equipment to patrol an open border will exceed the cost of the wall.

I don't think anyone is envisioning a fleet of MQ-9's flying combat air patrols over the whole of the southern border 24/7/365. We have remote sensing technology that is easily deployed, we have small drones that can be (and are) used for surveillance of remote areas. An electronic barrier backed up by a large (or at least larger than current), mobile force is a much more reasonable and dynamic solution than building 2000 miles of concrete and steel and sitting behind it thinking that we've solved the problem.

Build the wall, patrol the wall. Then revamp immigration processes to flow more efficiently. Pretty simple solution if you ask me.

Simple solution for the simple minded.

This issue is so much more complex than just "Build the wall! Build the wall!" Has anyone stopped to think, if this is 'the' solution... why hasn't it been done before?

 

[pELYgroso]

Wait, a wall hasn't been built before to keep people out of a place? Something about this seems off....

 

[skippy]

I saw Monty Python and that trojan Rabbit worked like a charm, Ill radio down to the border and alert border patrol that if they see any overly large rabbits to not let them through

 

[pELYgroso]

I feel like the wall won't stop 100% of people wanting to cross. Those very determined will still cross and have to deal with border patrol (hopefully). It's like my dad always used to say, locks are there to keep the honest people honest. BUT, look at the photos of the huge caravan of people arriving at the CA border. Guess what is stopping them from walking right into the country. A wall. The wall will deter most of the people who are thinking about strolling across our borders from starting through the desert. It will alleviate SO MANY resources that are currently spent on rounding people up and shipping them back. We can then use those $$$ and personnel resources to implement a better immigration policy for those who want to come through legally. Yes it will be expensive, but over the long term it will save $$, IMO, and send a valuable message to those wanting to enter the USA that they need to go through the proper channels.

Having said that, I agree with Houndoc that a huge reform of our policies needs to happen to allow those with good intentions to make relatively quick progress towards work visas or citizenship.

 

[SAMI]

Simple solution for the simple minded.

A perfect example of why you have so many friends Stephen.

 

[Noahfecks]

Post above needs to reference and facts to support it. I won't trust a pretty picture alone (although great if it is correct, no one will defend human trafficking.)

I was asked to clarify my position on immigration. Happy to do so.

In general, for decades legal immigration has been based on one of a handful of options. 1) marriage to a citizen 2) sponsored by a citizen family member (now derided as "chain migration" and very misrepresented. Had my wife chose to petition for her siblings after she gained citizenship they could have applied to immigrate after a 20 year wait) 3) Job specific visa (tied to a specific job) 4) refugee/asylum- not really the same thing but will put them together here 5)lottery system where specific countries have set number of slots available and applicants are selected at random from those who have applied and passed required background check.

Keep in mind with everyone of those options full background checks and processes are followed and the process is far from simple.

This leaves very little options for your 'average' worker who seeks a better future in the US. In reality, I think for most of us that is the very class of people that our ancestors would be part of. Now they have no real way to legally enter. This is made worse with the changes passed this year that go away from family and lottery to skills based immigration. A hard worker without advanced degree had more doors closed to them.

Then the facts on effects of immigration are also widely misunderstood. First off, immigrants- legal or not- are eligible for very few federal assistance programs and are legally required to pay taxes. Yet keeping many illegal actual discourages payment of income taxes since more likely to be paid under the table for obvious reasons.

On the impact on jobs, there are more job openings than people actively seeking employment (last numbers I heard have about 2 million extra jobs, covering most all fields but most notable in construction and agriculture- sorry don't have time right now to provide link to the numbers despite my comment above on documenting sources).

Second, this past year the birth rate of US citizens has fallen below the rate required to maintain the current population- in other words, without immigration the US population will begin to decrease. You add that to the already increasing number of retirees compared to workers as baby boomers retire and our economic future is rather bleak.

So the reality is those who claim we can not "afford" immigrants are off base. The economy needs them.

I don't have a answer as to how many are "too many". But fact is they come, legally or not (40%+ by over staying visas, thus not affected by the wall). We need to make a clear path for legal entry for those same individuals.

I also think the skills based plan is wrong. Not sure how "America First" it is to protect low skill, low pay jobs for Americans and encourage immigrants to take the high pay/high skill positions.

But that aside, we never know what an immigrant or their children will accomplish. I had a good friend who arrived in the US as an illiterate, 17 year old war refugee. His first day in class room was as a freshmen at the U after passing the GRE. He went on to earn his PhD, become a college professor and establish several successful business.

So, yes I am very pro-immigration. I love the diversity of my friends and family. Even to realize in something as simple as my Tooele county adult soccer league I have played in games where of the 16 players on the field, we were born on 4 continents and represent over half a dozen countries. that to me is a good thing.

Thanks for your response, I appreciate the honest and civil dialogue.

I think most would agree that there are some common sense adjustments to our LEGAL immigration policies that may be beneficial. May I ask what criteria you would propose for prospective candidates? I guess from my perspective if we are not looking for advanced skills, a lottery allotment spread across the world makes sense. If I understand you correctly you want to bring more average Joe types, but you don't care for the lottery that at first blush seems like a fair way for every Joe to have a chance.

We will have to agree to disagree that our economy needs immigrants.

I do take issue with this statement - "But fact is they come, legally or not (40%+ by over staying visas, thus not affected by the wall). We need to make a clear path for legal entry for those same individuals." We have a clear path for legal entry and yet millions still choose to come illegally. We need to build both physical and virtual barriers to prevent them from coming and we need to make it impossible for them to find employment or shelter if they somehow end up here by staying past a visa expiration.

 

[Houndoc]

Thanks for your response, I appreciate the honest and civil dialogue.

I think most would agree that there are some common sense adjustments to our LEGAL immigration policies that may be beneficial. May I ask what criteria you would propose for prospective candidates? I guess from my perspective if we are not looking for advanced skills, a lottery allotment spread across the world makes sense. If I understand you correctly you want to bring more average Joe types, but you don't care for the lottery that at first blush seems like a fair way for every Joe to have a chance.

We will have to agree to disagree that our economy needs immigrants.

I do take issue with this statement - "But fact is they come, legally or not (40%+ by over staying visas, thus not affected by the wall). We need to make a clear path for legal entry for those same individuals." We have a clear path for legal entry and yet millions still choose to come illegally. We need to build both physical and virtual barriers to prevent them from coming and we need to make it impossible for them to find employment or shelter if they somehow end up here by staying past a visa expiration.

My point is that for most people there is no clear, legal path. The number of immigrants allowed from countries such as Mexico is far lower than demand, thus many choose illegal entry. And the new focus on high skilled workers will make that worse.

The lottery idea isn't bad on its face, just too limited on numbers from many locations. Again, the fact that Trump pushed reforms that drastically reduce numbers allowed legally likely will encourage more illegal immigration.

 

[Spork]

My point is that for most people there is no clear, legal path. The number of immigrants allowed from countries such as Mexico is far lower than demand, thus many choose illegal entry. And the new focus on high skilled workers will make that worse.

The lottery idea isn't bad on its face, just too limited on numbers from many locations. Again, the fact that Trump pushed reforms that drastically reduce numbers allowed legally likely will encourage more illegal immigration.

I've noticed a shift to Mexico for tech support with one of the companies I've worked with. Not sure if it's a cultural difference or the English was better but I prefer dealing with the support out of Mexico vs India. I've worked with a bunch of Indian H1B holders and sometimes I wonder how high the bar is for tech workers because I have a feeling they just barely cleared it if there is one.

 

[Noahfecks]

My point is that for most people there is no clear, legal path. The number of immigrants allowed from countries such as Mexico is far lower than demand, thus many choose illegal entry. And the new focus on high skilled workers will make that worse.

The lottery idea isn't bad on its face, just too limited on numbers from many locations. Again, the fact that Trump pushed reforms that drastically reduce numbers allowed legally likely will encourage more illegal immigration.

Thank you again for the response.

I think I understand your point now, you are saying there should be a clear legal path for anyone and everyone who wants to come to the US. Because central American countries are in a geographical proximity that allows a person to walk here, they are more deserving of the opportunity available in the US than someone from an Asian, African, or European country.

I would revert to the gumball example, you cant import enough poverty to make a difference, but you can (potentially already do) import enough to swamp the lifeboat. You have to force these people to stay at home and fix things where they live, extend a helping hand, but keep them where they are. The problems in their home countries are not going to just end, especially if we keep taking their most motivated agents of change.

I would say that you have made the case for building a "wall". Those capable of reaching our southern border feel they have the right to make demands on our nation. Perhaps more appalling is that if their demands are not met, they feel entitled to come here in direct, willful, and blatant disregard for our nation and it's laws. Those without any respect for our laws also have no respect for our culture and never make an attempt to assimilate. Immigration without assimilation is by definition an invasion, especially when done illegally. Building a "wall" seems like the minimum our nation should do to repel an invading force.

Yes I do have a plan to help the nations of origin for these invaders. We need to educate and teach job skills to millions of them, expose them to our culture and government so they can go back and fix the broken things in their home countries. Give them a HS level education and allow those with the capacity to go to our colleges. Those that are not on the college path should learn job skills. They can go home and be the agents of change that ends the poverty and attracts jobs that sustain the economic growth of their home countries.