[Rushy]

trump and bernie are basically the same candidate.  "america sucks because of [insert your greatest fears here], and only i can save you with my plan to [insert policy proposal that congress will never, ever pass]."

imo imo tbqh

They do agree with a lot of policies, but Trump is a leader who has had executive power for most of his life. Bernie Sanders is a bum who lived off of government money most of his life. One is HIGH ENERGY, the other one is a mess, just like Jeb. Bernie Sanders is not fit to be POTUS. He doesn't know how to lead people, which is why his campaign is going to shit.

Also, I withdraw my prediction that John Kasich will be the VP.

[Saddam Hussein]

Mostly the clips I've heard from Trump Supporters, speaking to Trump supporters, and Trump's own plans which are so vague that their support is purely emotional.
Take the wall he wants to build.
There's already a wall.  Several of them in various locations with varying degrees of security.  So he's proposing to build ANOTHER wall.  And have Mexico pay for it.  He makes no mention of how or what kind or where the wall will be or how it'll be monitored.  I mean, we have a long and (in some places) deadly border with Mexico.  Just patrolling it is going to take hundreds of people if not thousands.

Then banning Muslims.  This is not going to stop anything as he has no way of actually knowing who is Muslim or not. 

The support is largely based on "He will stop them".  See my previous link to the rise of authoritarianism.

That doesn't sound very emotional to me.  Did you mean that their support is largely intuitive?

[sandokhan]

Do not underestimate the wonderful vision of socialism; the working class can see how well it functions for the rich, they can also observe that for the past 80 years America has had a mixed economy.

Sanders is the new Jimmy Carter. Should Hillary get indicted, there is no one else left to win the nomination.

As I have described in my last message, Sanders would win against Trump, even though his campaign might not be very well run.

Only a true conservative can run successfully against Sanders, this much all the major figures in the GOP understand.

Democracy means public ownership of the major means of production, said Sanders back in 1987.

However, in America, the idea of public ownership of the means of production is a dead issue.

What the current leadership (both parties) is working to achieve is something else: retain private property, but have public control over its use and disposal.


Both Sanders and Trump are being used to create something very dangerous in America: to secure the vote of seemingly independent constituents who are lulled into a false sense of political novelty, only to be terribly disappointed (thus increasing the chances and the conditions necessary for a civil war).

[Roundy]

www.loser.com

[Lord Dave]

Mostly the clips I've heard from Trump Supporters, speaking to Trump supporters, and Trump's own plans which are so vague that their support is purely emotional.

I've had the opposite experience. People are so polarized against Trump that they haven't bothered (or outright refuse) to learn about his actual policies. They just parrot "Trump is xenophobic! Trump is racist!" etc. without any real meat to their argument. I've learned the vast majority of people who hate Trump argue from emotion, not logic. No one here could even produce a single racist statement Trump made and the 'xenophobia' claim makes no sense either. Trump has only ever spoken about illegal immigration and has made a point that legal immigration is welcome. It's not xenophobic to filter out who can live in your country.

But he does say he'll ban Muslims and he did say that Mexico is sending us rapists and murders.
But, yes, we do argue from emotion alot.  After all, Donald Trump is a very emotional guy and holds a grudge.  Though his threats of lawsuits don't usually end up happening so that's at least something.

Take the wall he wants to build.
There's already a wall.  Several of them in various locations with varying degrees of security.  So he's proposing to build ANOTHER wall.  And have Mexico pay for it.  He makes no mention of how or what kind or where the wall will be or how it'll be monitored.  I mean, we have a long and (in some places) deadly border with Mexico.  Just patrolling it is going to take hundreds of people if not thousands.

There's a fence and it's mostly garbage and placed very terribly along the border. Trump has cited the wall the Israeli's built many times. It cost roughly 1.8 million dollars per mile and that's the "8 billion dollar" estimate comes from. When Trump says we'll "make Mexico pay for it" he doesn't literally mean Mexico will write us a check. Mexico receives billions of dollars in foreign aid. They're about to receive 8 billion dollars less.

Walls are generally a psychological barrier and not necessarily a functional one. Simply hearing about Trump being elected will probably deter a lot of would-be illegal aliens, whereas things like sanctuary cities and free education increase their movement.

I looked at the fence Israel is building.
First off, it started in 2002.
It got about 62% finished by 2012 and has nearly no progress by 2014.  In late 2014, it was defunded as it did nothing to prevent the suicide bombings it was built do prevent.  Instead, other, more political avenues have been more effective.

Also, the wall was planned to be 430 miles in length.
The US-Mexico border is closer to 2,000 miles.

Finally, 90% of said fence is , to quote wikipedia:

• A ditch and a pyramid shaped stack of six coils of barbed wire on the eastern side of the structure, barbed wire only on the western side.
• A path enabling the patrol of IDF forces on both sides of the structure.
• An intrusion- detection fence, in the center, with sensors to warn of any incursion.
• Smoothed strip of sand that runs parallel to the fence, to detect footprints.

So basically chain link fence, barbed wire, a walking path, some kind of sensor, and sand.
Now it's a mighty pointy fence but if it took Israel 10 years to build only 200ish miles of fence and they had people actually dying, exactly how will Donald Trump build a fence 10 times as long in 8 years? (assuming 2 terms)

[Rushy]

But he does say he'll ban Muslims and he did say that Mexico is sending us rapists and murders.

I don't see an issue here.

I looked at the fence Israel is building.
First off, it started in 2002.
It got about 62% finished by 2012 and has nearly no progress by 2014.  In late 2014, it was defunded as it did nothing to prevent the suicide bombings it was built do prevent.  Instead, other, more political avenues have been more effective.

It was built to prevent illegal Egyptian migrants, not suicide bombings, and it prevented 99% of them. We have to keep in mind, though, that Israelis have a shoot-on-sight policy. Whereas we don't fire on migrants.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/31/israeli-fence-cuts-migration-egypt

Finally, 90% of said fence is , to quote wikipedia:

• A ditch and a pyramid shaped stack of six coils of barbed wire on the eastern side of the structure, barbed wire only on the western side.
• A path enabling the patrol of IDF forces on both sides of the structure.
• An intrusion- detection fence, in the center, with sensors to warn of any incursion.
• Smoothed strip of sand that runs parallel to the fence, to detect footprints.

So basically chain link fence, barbed wire, a walking path, some kind of sensor, and sand.
Now it's a mighty pointy fence but if it took Israel 10 years to build only 200ish miles of fence and they had people actually dying, exactly how will Donald Trump build a fence 10 times as long in 8 years? (assuming 2 terms)

Why must it be built during Trump's term in office? Do you expect a fence to suddenly pop out of the ground when he is inaugurated?

[Lord Dave]

But he does say he'll ban Muslims and he did say that Mexico is sending us rapists and murders.

I don't see an issue here.

Seems rather knee jerk and sterotyping

I looked at the fence Israel is building.
First off, it started in 2002.
It got about 62% finished by 2012 and has nearly no progress by 2014.  In late 2014, it was defunded as it did nothing to prevent the suicide bombings it was built do prevent.  Instead, other, more political avenues have been more effective.

It was built to prevent illegal Egyptian migrants, not suicide bombings, and it prevented 99% of them. We have to keep in mind, though, that Israelis have a shoot-on-sight policy. Whereas we don't fire on migrants.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/31/israeli-fence-cuts-migration-egypt

Wrong fence.  The one I'm talking about (the super one I assumed Trump meant) was the fence around the west bank, not the southern border.  The southern border fence is not much different from waht we have just along a much much much smaller area.

Also: how do they know no one came over?  If they did and no one noticed, they'd have no clue.

Finally, 90% of said fence is , to quote wikipedia:

• A ditch and a pyramid shaped stack of six coils of barbed wire on the eastern side of the structure, barbed wire only on the western side.
• A path enabling the patrol of IDF forces on both sides of the structure.
• An intrusion- detection fence, in the center, with sensors to warn of any incursion.
• Smoothed strip of sand that runs parallel to the fence, to detect footprints.

So basically chain link fence, barbed wire, a walking path, some kind of sensor, and sand.
Now it's a mighty pointy fence but if it took Israel 10 years to build only 200ish miles of fence and they had people actually dying, exactly how will Donald Trump build a fence 10 times as long in 8 years? (assuming 2 terms)

Why must it be built during Trump's term in office? Do you expect a fence to suddenly pop out of the ground when he is inaugurated?

Do you really expect the next president/congress to approve continued funding otherwise?  Unless it has nearly immediate results or its guarenteed to be built no matter what, once Trump leaves it could be stopped at an instant.

[sandokhan]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_revenge_of_the_lower_classes_and_the_rise_of_american_fascism_20160302

[Rushy]

Seems rather knee jerk and sterotyping

How so?

Wrong fence.  The one I'm talking about (the super one I assumed Trump meant) was the fence around the west bank, not the southern border.  The southern border fence is not much different from waht we have just along a much much much smaller area.

Looks like that one was pretty effective to me, Dave.

Also: how do they know no one came over?  If they did and no one noticed, they'd have no clue.

If you have 30,000 illegal crossings a year turn into about 40, then you might think the statistical error of people who crossed but weren't found becomes pretty irrelevant.

Do you really expect the next president/congress to approve continued funding otherwise?  Unless it has nearly immediate results or its guarenteed to be built no matter what, once Trump leaves it could be stopped at an instant.

Having half a fence would still be preferable to having none. At least Trump tried to give this country its balls back in that case.

[Saddam Hussein]

...he did say that Mexico is sending us rapists and murders.

I don't see an issue here.

You don't see an issue with a bullshit conspiracy theory that Trump pulled out of his ass to cater to racist morons?

[Blanko]

...he did say that Mexico is sending us rapists and murders.

I don't see an issue here.

You don't see an issue with a bullshit conspiracy theory that Trump pulled out of his ass to cater to racist morons?

Nice kafkabaiting. If you're not going to make a reasonable argument, why post at all?

[Saddam Hussein]

Nice kafkabaiting. If you're not going to make a reasonable argument, why post at all?

I looked up "kafkabaiting" (or "kafkatrapping"); it appears to be a buzzword used exclusively by conspiracy nuts and sleazy right-wing webshites.  The gist of it is that you accuse someone of something, then use their denials as further evidence of your accusation?  That's certainly not what I'm doing.

[Blanko]

Nice kafkabaiting. If you're not going to make a reasonable argument, why post at all?

I looked up "kafkabaiting" (or "kafkatrapping"); it appears to be a buzzword used exclusively by conspiracy nuts and sleazy right-wing webshites.  The gist of it is that you accuse someone of something, then use their denials as further evidence of your accusation?  That's certainly not what I'm doing.

You're doing it again, and implicitly accusing me of being a "conspiracy nut" and "sleazy right-wing". And what if I deny your accusation, are you just going to let it go and admit you were wrong? I don't think so.

[Rushy]

I'll gladly have a discussion with you Saddam if you'll do me the favor of untriggering yourself and start using your bigboy words.

"That's racist!" is not an acceptable response, especially when Dave's quote didn't even mention a race.

[garygreen]

http://fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/how-do-donald-trumps-campaign-proposals-so-far-add-up/

it is "literally impossible" to balance the budget under trump's proposals.  his plan is demonstrably worse than the status quo.

Roughly speaking, achieving a balanced budget by 2026 would require roughly $8 trillion of deficit reduction over ten years; and that figure would increase to between $19.7 trillion and $23.1 trillion over a decade assuming the enactment of Mr. Trump’s website proposals.5

To achieve this level of savings with spending reductions alone would require huge cuts. For example, cutting the entire budget (other than the VA and immigration enforcement, which are increased in his plans) across-the-board would require a reduction of 39 to 46 percent – a figure that is highly unlikely to be achieved.

Those cuts, however, include cutting Social Security benefits by nearly half – when Mr. Trump has argued multiple times that Social Security benefits should be left alone. Exempting Social Security, cuts would need to total 55 to 65 percent. Also removing Medicare, which Mr. Trump has called for protecting as well (though he has also proposed some small potential savings in the Medicare space), cuts would need to total 75 and 87 percent. And if defense were also exempted, as an area Mr. Trump has committed to strengthening, it becomes literally impossible to balance the budget with only spending cuts.

the economy would have to grow twice as quickly as its historic high to pay for these cuts.

Assuming Tax Foundation’s economic feedback estimates are linear relative to GDP growth after 10 years, it would require 7.7 to 9.0 percent real annual growth to simply pay for the initiatives on Donald Trump’s website, and 10.4 to 11.4 percent real annual growth to balance the budget within a decade. In other words, to balance the budget, growth would have to be roughly 5 times as large as projected, and twice as high as the fastest growth period in the last 60 years (which was between 1959 and 1968).

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I'll gladly have a discussion with you Saddam if you'll do me the favor of untriggering yourself and start using your bigboy words.

"That's racist!" is not an acceptable response, especially when Dave's quote didn't even mention a race.

To continually deny the obvious racist implications of saying muslims should be banned from this country, and mexican immigrants are rapist and murderers, is at best apologetic and at worst wholehearted agreement with such bigoted rhetoric.

[Rushy]

I'll gladly have a discussion with you Saddam if you'll do me the favor of untriggering yourself and start using your bigboy words.

"That's racist!" is not an acceptable response, especially when Dave's quote didn't even mention a race.

To continually deny the obvious racist implications of saying muslims should be banned from this country, and mexican immigrants are rapist and murderers, is at best apologetic and at worst wholehearted agreement with such bigoted rhetoric.

How can someone who never mentions race be racist? It's at best xenophobia, which is really just a globalist buzzword invented to shame people into thinking their country doesn't have its own rights.

No one here other than Garygreen has come up with even one good point against Trump.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

How about this:

Donald Trump is an asshole.

That's basically it. One look and you can tell he is so obviously out of touch with his own horrible smegma, let alone relate with anyone who isn't at least a millionaire. He in no way could ever possibly represent the average american citizen, unless of course the average american citizen is a bunch of out of touch, self-absorbed billionaires that is.

You can debate that all you want, but I know a douche bag when I see one.

[Rushy]

Trump is an ass, that's true enough, but the problem is that all the other candidates are warmongering psychopaths, crazed loonies, or both.

Thusly I can conclude that Trump's personality is better than the other candidates as well.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Trump is an ass, that's true enough, but the problem is that all the other candidates are warmongering psychopaths, crazed loonies, or both.

Thusly I can conclude that Trump's personality is better than the other candidates as well.

Yeah, I guess a likable, non psychopath is too much to ask for huh lol... can we at least get a likable psychopath???

Patrick Bateman for President 2016!!!