Octopus Overlords

El Guapo wrote:

msduncan wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

YellowKing wrote:Of course I don't think he's clinically insane. But I think you have to be at least a little crazy to want to be President.

I disagree that he's not intelligent. You don't become head of an empire like that by being a dunce. I'm not saying he's the self-proclaimed genius he thinks he is, but he's too shrewd a businessman to be a moron.

To be fair, you do become the head of a business empire by inheriting a shit ton of money from your businessman father. Whether he is actually an especially shrewd businessman (rather than leveraging the wealth he started with) seems debatable.

He successfully revitalized Times Square and Atlantic City. He said he was going to do it, and he did it. Watched a documentary on it about 6 months ago on PBS. Just because people disagree with him doesn't make him unintelligent. I'd argue that his campaign was highly intelligent based on the fact that he broke just about every cardinal rule of politics and cruised to a crushing victory.

Do you have a link to that documentary handy? I'd be interested to check it out. Admittedly due to the nature of the campaign season I've been seeing more stuff lately tearing down his business record (that setting aside individual business failures, if you compare his probable wealth now to what he started with the rate of growth is below the interest rate over that period), but I am curious to hear what the documentary said about this stuff.

I also tend not to think of Atlantic City as "revitalized", but maybe that's changed more recently.

FWIW I assume Trump is at least not a moron, though whether he is especially smart or not I am not sure about. It also depends on stuff that's hard to know - like, did he run the campaign he has because he believes all this crazy nonsense (which would make him dumb) or did he run the campaign he has because he decided he could be successful running a campaign explicitly appealing to craziness that the GOP elite has (somewhat to its credit) underserved (which would make him smart, if immoral)?

Actually found it on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgawv-3oDcQ

El Guapo wrote:

msduncan wrote:Though I'm no Trump fan, I still outright reject the idea that wanting a legal and process-based immigration policy with secure borders indicates some sort of racism. It's a convenient mud pie to sling at the other side so you can infuse the electorate with voters that align with your policy desires. Pretending otherwise is dishonest. No other country on earth allows wholesale chaotic immigration without a legal process -- not even Mexico.

It must be a relief that nobody here is arguing any of that, then.

But it is what we have at the moment, no? Streams of people crossing the border with no enforcement, deportations, or preventative actions. When someone brings up any ways of enforcing border integrity they are labeled a racist by activists/politicians/celebrities/media. The typical PC goon squad that "polices" ideas these days.

El Guapo wrote:Another option would be Chris Christie, though I think he's less likely than Gingrich or Walker.

I think a Governor pick would need to deliver his own state...and Christie won't deliver that anymore. He is in it for Attorney General I bet.

El Guapo wrote:

msduncan wrote:Though I'm no Trump fan, I still outright reject the idea that wanting a legal and process-based immigration policy with secure borders indicates some sort of racism. It's a convenient mud pie to sling at the other side so you can infuse the electorate with voters that align with your policy desires. Pretending otherwise is dishonest. No other country on earth allows wholesale chaotic immigration without a legal process -- not even Mexico.

It must be a relief that nobody here is arguing any of that, then.

Also scratching my head as to where you got that from. No one here has even once endorsed tossing out all legal and process-based immigration policies...well, other than Trump himself, who wants to shut them down completely for select groups.

msduncan wrote:
But it is what we have at the moment, no?

If you're answering your own question with "no", then you are correct.

El Guapo wrote:I also tend not to think of Atlantic City as "revitalized", but maybe that's changed more recently.

Atlantic City is a the exact opposite of revitalized. It's a dying city. Which isn't to say that this is Trump's fault, or that it wasn't revitalized prior to it's current state, but it's an absolute mess now.

But "Imma build a giant wall to keep the rapists out" is pretty much Trump's entire message on this subject.

You have to be pretty desperate to hook your cart up to that sort of horse.

Even a Democrat's (any!) position is more substantive and realistic in dealing with the "problem" of illegal immigration than that.

Worse than the racism (which I understand is not as important to some) is the logistical impossibility of building the actual wall. And when questioned on it, his response is that the wall just got bigger. Why not make your imaginary wall orbit skirting? It's just as possible and no less absurd.

Trump's "position" on illegal immigration is to have magic stop criminals from crossing. And people think he's going to successfully deal with a "problem" that has existed for decades and no other president has been able to "solve"?

He's a shyster that just so happened to stumble upon the snake oil people have been clamouring for this time around.

msduncan wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

msduncan wrote:Though I'm no Trump fan, I still outright reject the idea that wanting a legal and process-based immigration policy with secure borders indicates some sort of racism. It's a convenient mud pie to sling at the other side so you can infuse the electorate with voters that align with your policy desires. Pretending otherwise is dishonest. No other country on earth allows wholesale chaotic immigration without a legal process -- not even Mexico.

It must be a relief that nobody here is arguing any of that, then.

But it is what we have at the moment, no? Streams of people crossing the border with no enforcement, deportations, or preventative actions. When someone brings up any ways of enforcing border integrity they are labeled a racist by activists/politicians/celebrities/media. The typical PC goon squad that "polices" ideas these days.

Well, no - obviously we have immigration enforcement (and spend a lot of money on it), and a LOT of deportations. The enforcement that we have is not keeping more people from coming, to be sure, but keeping net illegal immigration at or near zero is all but impossible. You can certainly fairly criticize immigration enforcement from a variety of angles (and people do), but it's obviously not the case that there's no immigration enforcement or deportations.

And in any event, it's not that stuff that gets Trump labeled racist (because, outside of the wall, Trump's immigration enforcement is not all that different from the GOP mainstream, and the other GOP primary candidates weren't widely attacked as racists during the campaign). What gets Trump accused of being racist is mainly his whole "Mexicans are largely criminals" and "we should keep all Muslims out of the country" remarks.

....and failing to denounce David Duke's support, retweeting stuff from a white supremacists twitter account, going on white supremacist talk shows, etc.

hepcat wrote:....and failing to denounce David Duke's support, retweeting stuff from a white supremacists twitter account, going on white supremacist talk shows, etc.

Well, yes, but I only have so much time to cover this stuff.

El Guapo wrote:like, did he run the campaign he has because he believes all this crazy nonsense (which would make him dumb) or did he run the campaign he has because he decided he could be successful running a campaign explicitly appealing to craziness that the GOP elite has (somewhat to its credit) underserved (which would make him smart, if immoral)?

My money's on the latter. His past history implies he's more liberal than anything, so the idea that he believes a lot of crazy nonsense doesn't jibe with his previous stances. On the other hand, we do know that Trump's best talent is his ability to market himself.

I don't think Trump fits neatly into any political party because Trump only cares about Trump. We just watched the world's biggest used car salesman sell the country a lemon.

RunningMn9 wrote:

El Guapo wrote:I also tend not to think of Atlantic City as "revitalized", but maybe that's changed more recently.

Atlantic City is a the exact opposite of revitalized. It's a dying city. Which isn't to say that this is Trump's fault, or that it wasn't revitalized prior to it's current state, but it's an absolute mess now.

it is facing a default within weeks...unless NJ bails them out. It is a huge mess. Trump however was not the major actor there...though he is a part of it.

El Guapo wrote:

hepcat wrote:....and failing to denounce David Duke's support, retweeting stuff from a white supremacists twitter account, going on white supremacist talk shows, etc.

Well, yes, but I only have so much time to cover this stuff.

I'm just trying on wigs today, so I've got the time to cover you.

If Ivanka was old enough, he'd probably be tapping her.

So thinking this over today I guess the upside is that Trump has surrounded himself with complete bozos and has no ground game anywhere. The downside is Hillary Clinton as likely President and 4 to 8 more years of mud spraying out from the tires of the American economy because we refuse to pave the road anymore. I guess I picked the wrong day to quit amphetamines...

malchior wrote:So thinking this over today I guess the upside is that Trump has surrounded himself with complete bozos and has no ground game anywhere. The downside is Hillary Clinton as likely President and 4 to 8 more years of mud spraying out from the tires of the American economy because we refuse to pave the road anymore. I guess I picked the wrong day to quit amphetamines...

If it helps, we wouldn't be paving the roads even if Clinton lost to Sanders, because no Congress partially controlled by the GOP is going to be passing democratic bills. If anything, this marginally increases the odds of us funding infrastructure at the federal level, because this increases the odds of a complete GOP wipeout, which increases the odds that democrats will able to be able to get infrastructure funding legislation passed.

msduncan wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

msduncan wrote:Though I'm no Trump fan, I still outright reject the idea that wanting a legal and process-based immigration policy with secure borders indicates some sort of racism. It's a convenient mud pie to sling at the other side so you can infuse the electorate with voters that align with your policy desires. Pretending otherwise is dishonest. No other country on earth allows wholesale chaotic immigration without a legal process -- not even Mexico.

It must be a relief that nobody here is arguing any of that, then.

But it is what we have at the moment, no? Streams of people crossing the border with no enforcement, deportations, or preventative actions. When someone brings up any ways of enforcing border integrity they are labeled a racist by activists/politicians/celebrities/media. The typical PC goon squad that "polices" ideas these days.

Illegal immigration down under Obama. It was MUCH worse the last time the Republicans had the keys to the kingdom.

Given the current rate of immigration, it will cost about $75,000 per illegal immigrant per year given the projected costs of building Trump's wall and the annual maintenance -- and that's assuming it is 100% effective. Because history tells us walls are always the most effective deterrent, and anti-wall technology has never been developed. Just think if you instead welcomed those 400,000 every year and made tax payers out of them instead.

Again with the logic and reason?!

My feeling, based on hearing numerous Trump supporters interviewed:

A bigger part of Trump's appeal to his biggest demo (middle/lower white male) than the implied racism, is the anger at losing their sweet manufacturing jobs over the years - their solid middle class status, to lower middle or even lower, struggling to make ends meet, etc. That's pretty specific, but those who are in that situation, or those who live in towns all over middle America where that has happened again and again, see it and sympathize. It may not have happened to them specifically, but they see the results of that happening to a brother, uncle, etc. and are angry/resentful.

They see Mexico as a big part of that reason (certainly not as much now, as 20 years ago, but this has been a long process), or even worse, that the few jobs left to those who lost sweet mfg jobs, are being competed for with The Mexican Horde (TM).

It's lashing out at ANYthing that might represent competition to their already diminished job situations, or to punish those responsible for the situation (whether right or wrong) - basically any FTA (again, rightly or wrongly accused here), companies that relocate (Trump constantly pushes this button), politicians that seemingly were responsible, et al.

El Guapo wrote:If it helps, we wouldn't be paving the roads even if Clinton lost to Sanders, because no Congress partially controlled by the GOP is going to be passing democratic bills. If anything, this marginally increases the odds of us funding infrastructure at the federal level, because this increases the odds of a complete GOP wipeout, which increases the odds that democrats will able to be able to get infrastructure funding legislation passed.

Oh totally - I get that but don't believe for a second that even a blow out will change their behavior. They'll just assume a filibuster posture on the other side. We are well into a liberum veto period (figuratively). It just blows my mind that we are this bad.

malchior wrote:

El Guapo wrote:If it helps, we wouldn't be paving the roads even if Clinton lost to Sanders, because no Congress partially controlled by the GOP is going to be passing democratic bills. If anything, this marginally increases the odds of us funding infrastructure at the federal level, because this increases the odds of a complete GOP wipeout, which increases the odds that democrats will able to be able to get infrastructure funding legislation passed.

Oh totally - I get that but don't believe for a second that even a blow out will change their behavior. They'll just assume a filibuster posture on the other side. We are well into a liberum veto period (figuratively). It just blows my mind that we are this bad.

I wouldn't worry about the filibuster - it's already in tatters and will almost certainly be fully abolished the next time the same party controls both the Presidency and the Senate.

However, it is still the case for the time being that the same party effectively needs to control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency in order to get major legislation passed, which is problematic.

You know what I totally forgot about? How earlier in the campaign Trump criticized (in reference to John McCain) POWs for getting captured.

Clinton's going to have to double her staff to get enough editors to trim down the attack ads.

Trump has appointed Ben Carson to help find a VP.

Today Carson had this to say about Cruz:

When Fox News Radio’s John Gibson asked Carson on Wednesday whether it would be “smart” for presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump to offer Cruz a position on the Supreme Court, he said yes.

“I think he would be terrific on the Supreme Court, or I think he would be a terrific attorney general. Or he could be both,” Carson said. “He could be attorney general first, you know, go ahead and prosecute Hillary, and then go on the Supreme Court.”

msduncan wrote:Streams of people crossing the border with no enforcement, deportations, or preventative actions. When someone brings up any ways of enforcing border integrity they are labeled a racist by activists/politicians/celebrities/media. The typical PC goon squad that "polices" ideas these days.

This is a goddamn lie, msd.

My sister's boyfriend is responsible for initiating the deportation of students in part of the California University system and informing the former students that (1) they are getting kicked out of school and (2) their revoked visas mean they're getting deported if they don't leave the U.S. He has a panic button in case the former students turn violent.

Even the "liberal and PC" California University system enforces and deports. Illegal immigration is significantly down and extreme enforcement would violate civil rights. But what are facts to the Trump revolution?

GreenGoo wrote:But "Imma build a giant wall to keep the rapists out" is pretty much Trump's entire message on this subject.

You have to be pretty desperate to hook your cart up to that sort of horse.

Even a Democrat's (any!) position is more substantive and realistic in dealing with the "problem" of illegal immigration than that.

Worse than the racism (which I understand is not as important to some) is the logistical impossibility of building the actual wall. And when questioned on it, his response is that the wall just got bigger. Why not make your imaginary wall orbit skirting? It's just as possible and no less absurd.

Trump's "position" on illegal immigration is to have magic stop criminals from crossing. And people think he's going to successfully deal with a "problem" that has existed for decades and no other president has been able to "solve"?

He's a shyster that just so happened to stumble upon the snake oil people have been clamouring for this time around.

Really? We built the Panama Canal but a wall is a "logistical impossibility"? Maybe for Canada.

Panama Canal delivered on an economic need. The Trump Wall is just an albatross. Ask East Germany and France how walls worked out for them.

Zarathud wrote:Panama Canal delivered on an economic need. The Trump Wall is just an albatross. Ask East Germany and France how walls worked out for them.

What does that have to do with being logistically possible?

Some logistical impossibilities are more feasible than others.

There is significant incentive to design a canal to deliver an economic objective -- we'll throw away lives and treasure for the profit. Designing a wall to be impervious for political objectives? Only fools think that's worth the cost of building it, let alone maintaining it.

Rip wrote:

Zarathud wrote:Panama Canal delivered on an economic need. The Trump Wall is just an albatross. Ask East Germany and France how walls worked out for them.

What does that have to do with being logistically possible?

Okay everyone. Let him have that one. Logistically, technically, it's feasible. It's idiotic, like most of what comes out of his mouth, but he's so right on this one.

Zarathud wrote:Some logistical impossibilities are more feasible than others.

There is significant incentive to design a canal to deliver an economic objective -- we'll throw away lives and treasure for the profit. Designing a wall to be impervious for political objectives? Only fools think that's worth the cost of building it, let alone maintaining it.

Logistical impossibility has nothing at all to do with value. What the wall accomplishes or fails to has ZERO to do with whether it is logistically possible. It would pale in challenge to the one that is the Great Wall of China built long ago.

Whether it will be worth the cost or be effective are arguable but suggesting we can't do it is just silly.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... boots.html

Regardless of whether you agree with him or not - to say the jury’s split on that verdict is the understatement of the Millennium! – there can be no doubt that he has electrified U.S. politics in a way nobody has ever seen.
Here are 10 reasons why Trump’s torn apart the lazy, arrogant, detached Washington elite in America and left Hillary Clinton quaking in her Goldman Sachs financed boots.

Zarathud wrote:This is a goddamn lie, msd.

I feel like there has to be a better way to say it than that, no?

The problem of illegal immigration is tricky for two reasons - on the one hand, conservative media/politicians/etc have been using the issue to generate fear/votes from their constituents, and that stoking of the flames has been persistent for years; on the other hand, the problem is not spread across all of the US and so regional differences create very different lenses through which the problem is seen and how solutions are considered.

HOWEVER, to answer msduncan's question - people like Trump are accused of being bigots/racists because they aren't suggesting simple, common-sense immigration reforms. They are labeled that way for two reasons. First, their proposed solutions are completely unrealistic and are born out of irrational fear. Second, their reasoning for the need for such outlandish responses are racist/bigoted.

If a conservative wants to make an economic argument for increased measures to curb illegal immigration, and wants to suggest common sense solutions that are realistic and practical? I'm all ears. That's not Trump. Trump is in a tizzy that we need to build a magical wall out of unicorn fur because it's the only way to keep out the rapists that Mexico breeds to assault us.

Indeed, Mexico is a wonderful and very safe place.

https://travel.state.gov/content/passpo ... rning.html

tjg_marantz wrote:

Rip wrote:

Zarathud wrote:Panama Canal delivered on an economic need. The Trump Wall is just an albatross. Ask East Germany and France how walls worked out for them.

What does that have to do with being logistically possible?

Okay everyone. Let him have that one. Logistically, technically, it's feasible. It's idiotic, like most of what comes out of his mouth, but he's so right on this one.

An engineer explains why Trump's wall is so implausible. Granted, highly implausible is not technically impossible. John Oliver did a more amusing take on the subject.

It's a stretch to call that logistically feasible.

Exodor wrote:Trump has appointed Ben Carson to help find a VP.

Today Carson had this to say about Cruz:

When Fox News Radio’s John Gibson asked Carson on Wednesday whether it would be “smart” for presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump to offer Cruz a position on the Supreme Court, he said yes.

“I think he would be terrific on the Supreme Court, or I think he would be a terrific attorney general. Or he could be both,” Carson said. “He could be attorney general first, you know, go ahead and prosecute Hillary, and then go on the Supreme Court.”

That was an amazingly quick olive branch.

But after Trump abused his family, hard to see Cruz having any thing to do with him. Of course Ted could consult with his wife and his father and see what they have to say.

D.A.Lewis wrote:

Exodor wrote:Trump has appointed Ben Carson to help find a VP.

Today Carson had this to say about Cruz:

When Fox News Radio’s John Gibson asked Carson on Wednesday whether it would be “smart” for presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump to offer Cruz a position on the Supreme Court, he said yes.

“I think he would be terrific on the Supreme Court, or I think he would be a terrific attorney general. Or he could be both,” Carson said. “He could be attorney general first, you know, go ahead and prosecute Hillary, and then go on the Supreme Court.”

That was an amazingly quick olive branch.

But after Trump abused his family, hard to see Cruz having any thing to do with him. Of course Ted could consult with his wife and his father and see what they have to say.

Shouldn't his father say that he should forgive? Or does that not apply to "Satan"?

Kraken wrote:

tjg_marantz wrote:

Rip wrote:

Zarathud wrote:Panama Canal delivered on an economic need. The Trump Wall is just an albatross. Ask East Germany and France how walls worked out for them.

What does that have to do with being logistically possible?

Okay everyone. Let him have that one. Logistically, technically, it's feasible. It's idiotic, like most of what comes out of his mouth, but he's so right on this one.

An engineer explains why Trump's wall is so implausible. Granted, highly implausible is not technically impossible. John Oliver did a more amusing take on the subject.

It's a stretch to call that logistically feasible.

Thank you.

It's my fault for giving Rip something to grasp onto, so he could play word lawyer instead of addressing how unbelievably difficult it would be to build and maintain such a wall, how expensive it would be, and how ineffective it would be.

Rip wrote:Really? We built the Panama Canal but a wall is a "logistical impossibility"? Maybe for Canada.

Are you suggesting you build a moat between the two countries? Because the panama canal is less than 50 miles long, while the US/Mexico border is over 2,000 miles. But have at it. It's not *much* crazier than building a wall.

Kraken wrote:

tjg_marantz wrote:

Rip wrote:

Zarathud wrote:Panama Canal delivered on an economic need. The Trump Wall is just an albatross. Ask East Germany and France how walls worked out for them.

What does that have to do with being logistically possible?

Okay everyone. Let him have that one. Logistically, technically, it's feasible. It's idiotic, like most of what comes out of his mouth, but he's so right on this one.

An engineer explains why Trump's wall is so implausible. Granted, highly implausible is not technically impossible. John Oliver did a more amusing take on the subject.

It's a stretch to call that logistically feasible.

Yea I've read that. Challenging, yes. Impossible not even close.

That project alone could recover much of the U.S. steel industry for his term(s). Would be a boon to all the people he is looking to get votes from. Good for the rust belt, good for Trump.



Red line is US, blue Japan, green Russia, light blue India, and of course gold is China.
Each dotted line equals 100 Million Metric Tons.

Just returning to pre-Obama production would knock out the steel needed in no time. Not to mention help give some life-blood to the coal industry that has been suffocated.

I bet we could produce another 40-50 Million metric tons a year, easy.

What is not to love about the idea of the wall - a 2000 mile stimulus project costing between 10 and 40 billion dollars that provides dubious value. I mean it isn't like we couldn't employ Americans to improve actual useful infrastructure with that money, right? Since we're all good on that front, amirite? Might as well keep people employed since all our problems are solved.

malchior wrote:What is not to love about the idea of the wall - a 2000 mile stimulus project costing between 10 and 40 billion dollars that provides dubious value. I mean it isn't like we couldn't employ Americans to improve actual useful infrastructure with that money, right? Since we're all good on that front, amirite? Might as well keep people employed since all our problems are solved.

Sounds like a bargain.

http://fair.thinkrootshq.com/publicatio ... -taxpayers

This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84 billion at the state and local level. The study also estimates tax collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy. Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers.

Either we're spending billions on immigration enforcement or we're doing nothing. It can't be both.

Real people are taking precautions for the dangers of enforcing our immigration policy. I took msd's comment personally, like a family member of a deployed soldier would be offended to hear that we're not "doing anything in Iraq."