Author Topic: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency  (Read 36170 times)

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3053
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #50 on: May 18, 2016, 09:41:40 AM »
What is the deal with the Drumpf thing? Is this like the people who call the former governor of Louisiana Piyush Jindal?

I won't be voting for Trump, but I don't see how people look at Clinton's record and think it qualifies her. Look up current zones of control in Libya. That's on her.

ncornilsen

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #51 on: May 18, 2016, 09:57:47 AM »
The drumpf thing is a tactic used by the left to 'other' Donald as an outsider immigrant. Real bigoted stuff there.

Yet the howling when the whole 'make Bernie Gutman again' made it's rounds... it's like doing that was a super low blow. but only because it was against a democrat.


It's all kind of a mess, nobody knows when the change was made, but snopes seems to present the possibilities.
http://www.snopes.com/donald-drumpf/
« Last Edit: May 18, 2016, 10:01:49 AM by ncornilsen »

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #53 on: May 18, 2016, 10:17:02 AM »
I find it interesting that all the talk is of Trump promoting violence, but the only violence we've seen to date is by the anti-Trump protesters....

Then you're not paying attention.

Trump has advocated violence against reporters, and Trump's campaign manager was charged with misdmeanor battery of a reporter: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/politics/trump-campaign-manager-charged-with-simple-battery/

Trump advocates violence against protestors: "I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you that" and offers to pay for the legal defense of his supporters who assault protestors.  Then his supporters commit assault in
Louisville, Kentucky
Tuscon, Arizona (at least two arrested)
Fayetteville, North Carolina
and many more.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #54 on: May 18, 2016, 10:22:47 AM »
The "violence" comments are also mind-blowing to me.

Trump supporters at Trump rallies have punched one or two people.

Trump opponents at Trump rallies have damaged lots of property and attacked lots of people.

Yet Trump and his supporters are the violent ones?

The worst part about it is the subversive nature of the Left's protests. When did it become appropriate for people to attempt (and succeed) to SHUT DOWN and PREVENT a presidential candidate from speaking at a campaign event? That's crazy. The result of elections should be based upon debates, literature, word of mouth, and I suppose media coverage. Not by suppressing the views of candidates by rioting in the streets with the intent of shutting down speeches and preventing the candidate from physically getting to the event location.

That's not how we do things in America. Someone throws a fit at a Trump rally and gets punched? Shitty, but not problematic in the grand scheme of things. Rioting to suppress and prevent the speech of a presidential candidate? Very problematic. That kind of crap will result in the systemic breakdown of democratic systems.


solon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
  • Age: 1823
  • Location: OH
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #55 on: May 18, 2016, 10:30:44 AM »
I really wish I hadn't posted in this thread.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #56 on: May 18, 2016, 10:35:27 AM »
When did it become appropriate for people to attempt (and succeed) to SHUT DOWN and PREVENT a presidential candidate from speaking at a campaign event?

When did this happen? Trump is on TV speaking all the time. He seems to be able to get a word in.

I guess you're referring to the brief pauses during his speeches when he tells people to 'get them out of here' and sometimes threatens or condones violence against them. Although, I'm not sure that's too much of a departure from his message.

Digital Dogma

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 423
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #57 on: May 18, 2016, 10:41:50 AM »
I'm not worried about it, we get the government we deserve and nothing better, let this be a wakeup call to everyone who thinks its OK to sit out a few elections because they're not interested in politics.

solon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
  • Age: 1823
  • Location: OH
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #58 on: May 18, 2016, 10:43:19 AM »
I didn't know until just now what Drumpf meant. Turns out, Trump's ancestors are from Germany, and their ancestral name was Drumpf. But somewhere along the line the name got changed to Trump.

Imagine that! A GERMAN! Finally someone I can identify with! I know who I'll be voting for now.

davisgang90

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1360
  • Location: Roanoke, VA
    • Photography by Rich Davis
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #59 on: May 18, 2016, 11:10:41 AM »
I didn't know until just now what Drumpf meant. Turns out, Trump's ancestors are from Germany, and their ancestral name was Drumpf. But somewhere along the line the name got changed to Trump.

Imagine that! A GERMAN! Finally someone I can identify with! I know who I'll be voting for now.
You know who else was a German!!??  Oh, no wait, he was Austrian.  Nevermind...

Wilson Hall

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 163
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #60 on: May 18, 2016, 11:13:21 AM »
Trump is going to be much more moderate than he has been in the campaign.   Can't you see that 99% of what he does is an act?

He figured out that 99% of Americans are dumb as a sack of rocks, then he figured out how to get 51% of them to support him.

Edit: Also, don't believe 80% of what you read on the internet.

No, and neither can you. You are assuming that, but you really have no idea.

That's one hell of a gamble, in my opinion.

A serious gamble indeed. I'd rather vote for someone with whom I disagree on some issues but is a "true believer" than a more politically-moderate-sounding sociopath who changes his opinion from day to day. I'm terrified about what the Mouth of Mordor would do if he's elected president.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #61 on: May 18, 2016, 11:14:09 AM »
When did it become appropriate for people to attempt (and succeed) to SHUT DOWN and PREVENT a presidential candidate from speaking at a campaign event?

When did this happen? Trump is on TV speaking all the time. He seems to be able to get a word in.

I guess you're referring to the brief pauses during his speeches when he tells people to 'get them out of here' and sometimes threatens or condones violence against them. Although, I'm not sure that's too much of a departure from his message.

Not sure if serious....

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/12/us/trump-rally-in-chicago-canceled-after-violent-scuffles.html?_r=0

YK-Phil

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1173
  • Location: Nayarit (Mexico)
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #62 on: May 18, 2016, 11:15:27 AM »
When I was 10, my dad moved us to America, or so my little brother and I thought when we arrived in NYC on board the famous Queen Mary. That was June 1967, everything was huge, the cars as big as yachts, the crowds, the skyscrapers, the burgers and everything else. We were in awe, and we were in America, the America we saw in movies...Turned out a while later we were actually moving to the fake America, a couple hours drive north. And those fake Americans didn't even speak American. I could have been an American, and for a very long time, we resented our dad for lying to us kids...In hindsight, and for a number of reasons that are not political, I thank him for his wise decision.

On the surface, not a lot differentiates Americans from us Canadians. But lately, America looks from a distance like a strange and scary land, and what happens in the US impacts us and the rest of the world, good or bad, whether we like it or not. I know nothing of your country and would not even think about expressing any opinion on a candidate or the other, but from my many encounters with you guys, I trust you will make a wise choice for your next president.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23224
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #63 on: May 18, 2016, 11:24:19 AM »
Is it OK if I'm totally against Trump, but equally totally against anybody being violent in protest of Trump?

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #64 on: May 18, 2016, 11:53:52 AM »
The "violence" comments are also mind-blowing to me.

Trump supporters at Trump rallies have punched one or two people.

Trump opponents at Trump rallies have damaged lots of property and attacked lots of people.

Yet Trump and his supporters are the violent ones?

The worst part about it is the subversive nature of the Left's protests. When did it become appropriate for people to attempt (and succeed) to SHUT DOWN and PREVENT a presidential candidate from speaking at a campaign event? That's crazy. The result of elections should be based upon debates, literature, word of mouth, and I suppose media coverage. Not by suppressing the views of candidates by rioting in the streets with the intent of shutting down speeches and preventing the candidate from physically getting to the event location.

That's not how we do things in America. Someone throws a fit at a Trump rally and gets punched? Shitty, but not problematic in the grand scheme of things. Rioting to suppress and prevent the speech of a presidential candidate? Very problematic. That kind of crap will result in the systemic breakdown of democratic systems.

Were people wrong to be violent at Trump rallies? Of course.

But that doesn't justify Trump blatantly condoning and supporting violence against protestors. Frankly from his comments over the past months, it's almost like he wants that sort of problem to happen.

The actual events are less important than Trump's attitude. Individual supporters/protestors are responsible for their particular acts of stupidity. But Trump endorsing and condoning those who are violent towards protestors? That is where my problem is with Trump.

Fortunately beltim already compiled a list of him having this attitude (and the outcomes it has resulted in):

I find it interesting that all the talk is of Trump promoting violence, but the only violence we've seen to date is by the anti-Trump protesters....

Then you're not paying attention.

Trump has advocated violence against reporters, and Trump's campaign manager was charged with misdmeanor battery of a reporter: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/politics/trump-campaign-manager-charged-with-simple-battery/

Trump advocates violence against protestors: "I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you that" and offers to pay for the legal defense of his supporters who assault protestors.  Then his supporters commit assault in
Louisville, Kentucky
Tuscon, Arizona (at least two arrested)
Fayetteville, North Carolina
and many more.
.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #65 on: May 18, 2016, 12:20:54 PM »
I didn't know until just now what Drumpf meant. Turns out, Trump's ancestors are from Germany, and their ancestral name was Drumpf. But somewhere along the line the name got changed to Trump.

Imagine that! A GERMAN! Finally someone I can identify with! I know who I'll be voting for now.
You know who else was a German!!??  Oh, no wait, he was Austrian.  Nevermind...


infogoon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #66 on: May 18, 2016, 12:52:18 PM »
Is it OK if I'm totally against Trump, but equally totally against anybody being violent in protest of Trump?

That's dangerously close to a shade of grey. None of that allowed in a political thread.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Location: MA
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #67 on: May 18, 2016, 01:18:15 PM »
You know, it's so sad when I can predict who a comment is from without even looking at the username. 

BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4142
  • Location: WDC
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #68 on: May 18, 2016, 02:30:49 PM »
Does nobody else think Trump's bluster is pure grade-A New York sarcasm?   The American public is falling for it hook, line, and sinker.  Do you realize the historical significance of southerners fervently supporting a New Yorker for president?

I don't really know what a Trump presidency would look like, but I don't think his ramblings give us any clue.   I mean you need to completely ignore what all politicians say in their rhetoric, but that's 3 times as true with Trump. 

What's most disturbing about Trump's campaign isn't Trump, it's the people that completely get behind his craziest rantings.

What are these "craziest rantings?" I mean, he surely says some outlandish things. But the core of what he says is not crazy or outlandish, and many/most Americans agree with him.

WE NEED TO BUILD A WALL AND MAKE MEXICO PAY FOR IT! Ok, not gonna happen, but we DO need to secure our border.

WE NEED TO MAKE OUR ALLIES PAY FOR THEIR OWN DEFENSE! Ok, yeah, that makes sense.

CHINA! WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT CHINA! WE NEED TO WIN! Well, yeah, we have been losing a lot of jobs to China.

I disagree with almost everything Trump says for ideological reasons. On a practical level, I think some of his ideas could work, some won't. But when you strip away his obvious hyperbole and exaggerations (used for rhetorical effect, and it works) the stuff he says isn't really that crazy.
It frightens me that you hear and choose to believe something other than what he actually says.  Why can't we take someone's word at face value?  The man seems to have little understanding of how politics (or even business) actually works, and yet many people want to counter that with "oh, he understands, he's just exaggerating or analogizing or making a point".  How do you know?  Instead of listening to his statements, which tend to include a lot of words that get emotions worked up, I suggest reading his statements.  They do not make sense.  They are incoherent. 

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #69 on: May 18, 2016, 04:44:58 PM »
There's only one man who can make America great again!

These forums are packed with bernouts so I expect this thread to get locked up pretty quickly.

And happens to be moderated by a couple of Canadians ;) If everyone can be respectful and follow the forum rules, we won't lock the thread. It just so happens that every political discussion seems to take intelligent, thoughtful people and reduce them to stubborn children shouting "I'm right, because I say so"

That being said, I know my house happens to be the contingency plan and destination for some of my much-loved American friends should Trump win.

I think as far as contingency plans, it depends on how messed up you think everything will get, either from natural disaster, government mismanagement, whatever the latest conspiracy theory is. My thought is you be prepared as you can while living your life, and if we ever get to the point of full fiat currency collapse, losing your retirement fund is going to be the very least of your problems. Build a solid community around you, learn DIY skills that can keep you alive and that you can barter with. Have a bug-out kit and a plan just in case. Watch lots of old episodes of MacGyver for inspiration.

I've had some experience with sociopaths and do think Trump qualifies. Will be interesting to see how the elections shake out.

Trump is definitely a sociopath. We are screwed no matter who wins this election :(

I am very thankful for my EU citizenship.

Yeah, because Europe has a great track record of peace and prosperity over the past 100 or 500 years.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #70 on: May 18, 2016, 06:12:52 PM »
There's only one man who can make America great again!

These forums are packed with bernouts so I expect this thread to get locked up pretty quickly.

And happens to be moderated by a couple of Canadians ;) If everyone can be respectful and follow the forum rules, we won't lock the thread. It just so happens that every political discussion seems to take intelligent, thoughtful people and reduce them to stubborn children shouting "I'm right, because I say so"

That being said, I know my house happens to be the contingency plan and destination for some of my much-loved American friends should Trump win.

I think as far as contingency plans, it depends on how messed up you think everything will get, either from natural disaster, government mismanagement, whatever the latest conspiracy theory is. My thought is you be prepared as you can while living your life, and if we ever get to the point of full fiat currency collapse, losing your retirement fund is going to be the very least of your problems. Build a solid community around you, learn DIY skills that can keep you alive and that you can barter with. Have a bug-out kit and a plan just in case. Watch lots of old episodes of MacGyver for inspiration.

I've had some experience with sociopaths and do think Trump qualifies. Will be interesting to see how the elections shake out.

Trump is definitely a sociopath. We are screwed no matter who wins this election :(

I am very thankful for my EU citizenship.

Yeah, because Europe has a great track record of peace and prosperity over the past 100 or 500 years.
Does anywhere in the world?

seattlecyclone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7262
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Seattle, WA
    • My blog
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #71 on: May 18, 2016, 06:33:59 PM »
Yeah, because Europe has a great track record of peace and prosperity over the past 100 or 500 years.

The past is in the past. I for one think that it would be really useful to have the legal right to move to Europe if I felt I would do better there than in the US. Options are nice. Unfortunately my ancestors moved to the US long enough ago that I'm not eligible for any particular European citizenship, and they're rather expensive to acquire just on the off chance that I might need to use it.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3053
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #72 on: May 19, 2016, 06:53:28 AM »
Does nobody else think Trump's bluster is pure grade-A New York sarcasm?   The American public is falling for it hook, line, and sinker.  Do you realize the historical significance of southerners fervently supporting a New Yorker for president?

I don't really know what a Trump presidency would look like, but I don't think his ramblings give us any clue.   I mean you need to completely ignore what all politicians say in their rhetoric, but that's 3 times as true with Trump. 

What's most disturbing about Trump's campaign isn't Trump, it's the people that completely get behind his craziest rantings.

What are these "craziest rantings?" I mean, he surely says some outlandish things. But the core of what he says is not crazy or outlandish, and many/most Americans agree with him.

WE NEED TO BUILD A WALL AND MAKE MEXICO PAY FOR IT! Ok, not gonna happen, but we DO need to secure our border.

WE NEED TO MAKE OUR ALLIES PAY FOR THEIR OWN DEFENSE! Ok, yeah, that makes sense.

CHINA! WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT CHINA! WE NEED TO WIN! Well, yeah, we have been losing a lot of jobs to China.

I disagree with almost everything Trump says for ideological reasons. On a practical level, I think some of his ideas could work, some won't. But when you strip away his obvious hyperbole and exaggerations (used for rhetorical effect, and it works) the stuff he says isn't really that crazy.
It frightens me that you hear and choose to believe something other than what he actually says.  Why can't we take someone's word at face value?  The man seems to have little understanding of how politics (or even business) actually works, and yet many people want to counter that with "oh, he understands, he's just exaggerating or analogizing or making a point".  How do you know?  Instead of listening to his statements, which tend to include a lot of words that get emotions worked up, I suggest reading his statements.  They do not make sense.  They are incoherent.

I agree, I think it's all jibber-jabber.

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #73 on: May 19, 2016, 07:05:59 AM »
Lest anyone think it's all media induced hype about him being immature, his campaign page on his tax reform position says (emphasis mine):

Quote
If you are single and earn less than $25,000, or married and jointly earn less than $50,000, you will not owe any income tax. That removes nearly 75 million households – over 50% – from the income tax rolls. They get a new one page form to send the IRS saying, “I win,” those who would otherwise owe income taxes will save an average of nearly $1,000 each.

Maybe I have improper expectations of what a political candidate would do, but something like that just strikes me as immature and childish.

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

nobodyspecial

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1464
  • Location: Land above the land of the free
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #74 on: May 19, 2016, 07:22:31 AM »
In the UK (and most of europe) most people don't file a tax return.
Your employer collects tax on your salary and the bank takes the tax off any interest.
You only file a return if you pay a higher marginal rate or have investment income.

Doesn't it make sense for somebody under the personal tax allowance, who is probably also receiving state aid, not to have to fill out complex forms - and the government pay to process them - if they aren't going to pay any tax anyway?

2Birds1Stone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7958
  • Age: 1
  • Location: Earth
  • K Thnx Bye
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #75 on: May 19, 2016, 07:25:57 AM »
Lol, as if the EU is in any better shape.  Socialist parties gaining traction, Brexit, major immigration problem, sovereign default risk... sounds splendid.

What's with all the Europe bashing around here lately? Europe is a fantastic place to live. Literally billions of people around the world would be thrilled to get to move their families to Europe. No place composed of people is perfect. But things are generally pretty great there.

Not bashing, just pointing out the facts.  If you think the EU is a better place to live, then best of luck to you.

I have an EU citizenship and my family has an apartment we own outright in Poland in a very low cost of living city. So low in fact that if I wanted to move there today, I would be barebones FI....albeit fairly poor.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #76 on: May 19, 2016, 07:55:47 AM »
When did it become appropriate for people to attempt (and succeed) to SHUT DOWN and PREVENT a presidential candidate from speaking at a campaign event?

When did this happen? Trump is on TV speaking all the time. He seems to be able to get a word in.

I guess you're referring to the brief pauses during his speeches when he tells people to 'get them out of here' and sometimes threatens or condones violence against them. Although, I'm not sure that's too much of a departure from his message.

Not sure if serious....

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/12/us/trump-rally-in-chicago-canceled-after-violent-scuffles.html?_r=0

And then there is the other one (in California I think?) where he had to park far off and walk across freeways to sneak into the event because people were mobbing the front doors.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #77 on: May 19, 2016, 08:14:13 AM »
It frightens me that you hear and choose to believe something other than what he actually says.  Why can't we take someone's word at face value?

That's a good question.  Why can't we?  I guess that would mean we'd have to understand his positions to be anti-illegal immigration, and not just totally anti-Mexican, and for waiting to allow Muslim immigration until we can properly vet who is coming into the country, instead of just saying he's completely anti-Muslim. 

But that wouldn't fit the narrative that he's a complete bigot, so we can't do that. 

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #78 on: May 19, 2016, 08:14:49 AM »
Does nobody else think Trump's bluster is pure grade-A New York sarcasm?   The American public is falling for it hook, line, and sinker.  Do you realize the historical significance of southerners fervently supporting a New Yorker for president?

I don't really know what a Trump presidency would look like, but I don't think his ramblings give us any clue.   I mean you need to completely ignore what all politicians say in their rhetoric, but that's 3 times as true with Trump. 

What's most disturbing about Trump's campaign isn't Trump, it's the people that completely get behind his craziest rantings.

What are these "craziest rantings?" I mean, he surely says some outlandish things. But the core of what he says is not crazy or outlandish, and many/most Americans agree with him.

WE NEED TO BUILD A WALL AND MAKE MEXICO PAY FOR IT! Ok, not gonna happen, but we DO need to secure our border.

WE NEED TO MAKE OUR ALLIES PAY FOR THEIR OWN DEFENSE! Ok, yeah, that makes sense.

CHINA! WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT CHINA! WE NEED TO WIN! Well, yeah, we have been losing a lot of jobs to China.

I disagree with almost everything Trump says for ideological reasons. On a practical level, I think some of his ideas could work, some won't. But when you strip away his obvious hyperbole and exaggerations (used for rhetorical effect, and it works) the stuff he says isn't really that crazy.
It frightens me that you hear and choose to believe something other than what he actually says.  Why can't we take someone's word at face value?  The man seems to have little understanding of how politics (or even business) actually works, and yet many people want to counter that with "oh, he understands, he's just exaggerating or analogizing or making a point".  How do you know?  Instead of listening to his statements, which tend to include a lot of words that get emotions worked up, I suggest reading his statements.  They do not make sense.  They are incoherent.

You misunderstand me, I think.

Democrats wanted single-payer state administered healthcare. That was not politically/financially feasible, so we ended up with the ACA.
Democrats wanted a ban on Assault Weapons. That wasn't politically feasible so we ended up with a ban on new manufacture with a 10 year sunset clause.
Obama promised to close Guantanamo in his first year. We are in his last year, and they are still slowly transferring people out of the camps there.
Bush I said "Read my lips: no new taxes" and we ended up with some small new taxes.

Trump wants to build a wall. That isn't feasible but under Trump we may end up with some other more reasonable way of attaining increased border security.
Trump wants to restrict/ban Muslim immigration to the country. That isn't realistic, but under Trump we might have increased scrutiny for immigrants from countries like Syria and Iraq.

Politicians make wild claims and promises all the time. They hardly ever follow through, whether they ever intended to or not. We should use the campaign promises candidates make to understand the DIRECTION things will PROBABLY go if they get into office. That doesn't mean I am "hearing what I want to hear."

BUILD A WALL = increased border security
BAN ALL GUNS = new background check law, maybe magazine capacity limits
FREE HEALTHCARE = more subsidies and fed intervention
FREE COLLEGE = cheaper federal loans and maybe some loan relief
NO NEW TAXES = few new taxes
TAX THE RICH = some new easily avoided taxes for the rich, more mandatory taxes on middle class
END THE WAR = fewer interventions in the future, some gradual draw down in current conflicts

This is the way reasonable people interpret the garbage that comes out of the mouths of people campaigning for office.


winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #79 on: May 19, 2016, 08:19:34 AM »
It frightens me that you hear and choose to believe something other than what he actually says.  Why can't we take someone's word at face value?

That's a good question.  Why can't we?  I guess that would mean we'd have to understand his positions to be anti-illegal immigration, and not just totally anti-Mexican, and for waiting to allow Muslim immigration until we can properly vet who is coming into the country, instead of just saying he's completely anti-Muslim. 

But that wouldn't fit the narrative that he's a complete bigot, so we can't do that.

Awesome point Chris. Big +1

The same "logic" people use to conclude that Trump is anti-Hispanic could be used to conclude that Hillary is anti-man, and Obama is anti-white.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23224
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #80 on: May 19, 2016, 08:21:06 AM »
It frightens me that you hear and choose to believe something other than what he actually says.  Why can't we take someone's word at face value?

That's a good question.  Why can't we?  I guess that would mean we'd have to understand his positions to be anti-illegal immigration, and not just totally anti-Mexican, and for waiting to allow Muslim immigration until we can properly vet who is coming into the country, instead of just saying he's completely anti-Muslim. 

But that wouldn't fit the narrative that he's a complete bigot, so we can't do that.

FYI - The definition of bigot is "a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot).

Why should people who claim to be Christian be given a free pass on being vetted to a country?  Shouldn't everyone be vetted equally?  Why do you think that refusing to accept the members of a particular religious group is somehow not a form of bigotry?

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #81 on: May 19, 2016, 08:30:45 AM »
In the UK (and most of europe) most people don't file a tax return.
Your employer collects tax on your salary and the bank takes the tax off any interest.
You only file a return if you pay a higher marginal rate or have investment income.

Doesn't it make sense for somebody under the personal tax allowance, who is probably also receiving state aid, not to have to fill out complex forms - and the government pay to process them - if they aren't going to pay any tax anyway?

Plenty of things Trump says sort of make sense. It's the way he says them that is problematic. For example:

"Muslims hate America and we should make all American Muslims register in a database" vs "we should be careful in allowing any refugees to enter the USA without vetting."

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #82 on: May 19, 2016, 08:51:51 AM »
It frightens me that you hear and choose to believe something other than what he actually says.  Why can't we take someone's word at face value?

That's a good question.  Why can't we?  I guess that would mean we'd have to understand his positions to be anti-illegal immigration, and not just totally anti-Mexican, and for waiting to allow Muslim immigration until we can properly vet who is coming into the country, instead of just saying he's completely anti-Muslim. 

But that wouldn't fit the narrative that he's a complete bigot, so we can't do that.



FYI - The definition of bigot is "a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot).

Why should people who claim to be Christian be given a free pass on being vetted to a country?  Shouldn't everyone be vetted equally?  Why do you think that refusing to accept the members of a particular religious group is somehow not a form of bigotry?

The same reason I'm not concerned about a rabbit in my backyard and I am about a rattlesnake.  If you're coming from a place which has many people who have a stated goal of trying to actively kill Americans, it's different than if you aren't. 

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3053
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #83 on: May 19, 2016, 09:09:09 AM »
Honestly if you're super upset about Trump's plan to ban Muslims from coming to the USA (which is a stupid plan) and you're not upset over Obama blowing up Muslims all the time on very thin justification, with no oversight of any kind, you are not looking at the issue in a serious manner.

Nobody would have protested a thing if that San Bernadino shooter lady had been blown to smithereens in Pakistan, or for that matter if her infant sister had been. But propose that she shouldn't have been let in to the country - albeit in an unworkable and pointless manner - and suddenly people are upset? Give me a break. You don't care about Muslims, you care about politics.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #84 on: May 19, 2016, 09:24:01 AM »
It frightens me that you hear and choose to believe something other than what he actually says.  Why can't we take someone's word at face value?

That's a good question.  Why can't we?  I guess that would mean we'd have to understand his positions to be anti-illegal immigration, and not just totally anti-Mexican, and for waiting to allow Muslim immigration until we can properly vet who is coming into the country, instead of just saying he's completely anti-Muslim. 

But that wouldn't fit the narrative that he's a complete bigot, so we can't do that.

FYI - The definition of bigot is "a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot).

Why should people who claim to be Christian be given a free pass on being vetted to a country?  Shouldn't everyone be vetted equally?  Why do you think that refusing to accept the members of a particular religious group is somehow not a form of bigotry?

All immigrants should be scrutinized.

Some should be scrutinized more than others. All countries should have discriminatory immigration policies, and always have. America's are MORE open than almost any country in the world.

European countries give virtually NO scrutiny to people coming from other European countries (who happen generally to be white, educated, Christian/Secular people with similar culture). They apply strict scrutiny to people coming from other places (who happen to be mostly black/brown, often Muslim, uneducated and from dissimilar cultures). This policy seems to be considered totally OK, and actually admired by most of the world.

But when an American proposes having different levels of scrutiny depending on country of origin, it is BIGOTED and RACIST.

The hypocrisy is stunning.

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #85 on: May 19, 2016, 09:28:12 AM »
But when an American proposes having different levels of scrutiny depending on country of origin, it is BIGOTED and RACIST.

Nah I care a lot more about Trump's fairly cavalier comments about registering American Muslims and the media game he played about that with his refusal to say anything conclusively that he is opposed to that.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23224
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #86 on: May 19, 2016, 09:46:14 AM »
It frightens me that you hear and choose to believe something other than what he actually says.  Why can't we take someone's word at face value?

That's a good question.  Why can't we?  I guess that would mean we'd have to understand his positions to be anti-illegal immigration, and not just totally anti-Mexican, and for waiting to allow Muslim immigration until we can properly vet who is coming into the country, instead of just saying he's completely anti-Muslim. 

But that wouldn't fit the narrative that he's a complete bigot, so we can't do that.



FYI - The definition of bigot is "a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot).

Why should people who claim to be Christian be given a free pass on being vetted to a country?  Shouldn't everyone be vetted equally?  Why do you think that refusing to accept the members of a particular religious group is somehow not a form of bigotry?

The same reason I'm not concerned about a rabbit in my backyard and I am about a rattlesnake.  If you're coming from a place which has many people who have a stated goal of trying to actively kill Americans, it's different than if you aren't.

If you're concerned about the dangers posted by rattlesnakes, why are you only focusing only on the religion of the animals in your backyard?

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #87 on: May 19, 2016, 09:49:46 AM »
It frightens me that you hear and choose to believe something other than what he actually says.  Why can't we take someone's word at face value?

That's a good question.  Why can't we?  I guess that would mean we'd have to understand his positions to be anti-illegal immigration, and not just totally anti-Mexican, and for waiting to allow Muslim immigration until we can properly vet who is coming into the country, instead of just saying he's completely anti-Muslim. 

But that wouldn't fit the narrative that he's a complete bigot, so we can't do that.



FYI - The definition of bigot is "a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot).

Why should people who claim to be Christian be given a free pass on being vetted to a country?  Shouldn't everyone be vetted equally?  Why do you think that refusing to accept the members of a particular religious group is somehow not a form of bigotry?

The same reason I'm not concerned about a rabbit in my backyard and I am about a rattlesnake.  If you're coming from a place which has many people who have a stated goal of trying to actively kill Americans, it's different than if you aren't.

If you're concerned about the dangers posted by rattlesnakes, why are you only focusing only on the religion of the animals in your backyard?

In this particular case, religion is a fairly good proxy for danger.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23224
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #88 on: May 19, 2016, 09:55:26 AM »
It frightens me that you hear and choose to believe something other than what he actually says.  Why can't we take someone's word at face value?

That's a good question.  Why can't we?  I guess that would mean we'd have to understand his positions to be anti-illegal immigration, and not just totally anti-Mexican, and for waiting to allow Muslim immigration until we can properly vet who is coming into the country, instead of just saying he's completely anti-Muslim. 

But that wouldn't fit the narrative that he's a complete bigot, so we can't do that.

FYI - The definition of bigot is "a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot).

Why should people who claim to be Christian be given a free pass on being vetted to a country?  Shouldn't everyone be vetted equally?  Why do you think that refusing to accept the members of a particular religious group is somehow not a form of bigotry?

All immigrants should be scrutinized.

Some should be scrutinized more than others. All countries should have discriminatory immigration policies, and always have. America's are MORE open than almost any country in the world.

European countries give virtually NO scrutiny to people coming from other European countries (who happen generally to be white, educated, Christian/Secular people with similar culture). They apply strict scrutiny to people coming from other places (who happen to be mostly black/brown, often Muslim, uneducated and from dissimilar cultures). This policy seems to be considered totally OK, and actually admired by most of the world.

But when an American proposes having different levels of scrutiny depending on country of origin, it is BIGOTED and RACIST.

The hypocrisy is stunning.

Taking into account that certain areas of the world are a higher security risk is fundamentally different than deciding that all followers of a religion are a higher security risk.  Do you really not see the difference?

What you're proposing is like saying that all Chritians should have to go through special checks before purchasing a gun.  Frank Silva Roque, Joseph Stack Scott Roeder, Jim David Adkisson, Paul Jennings Hill, Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh . . . there have been many Christian terrorists in recent years.  Singling out all Christians because there are some extremists who follow the faith is wrong though.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23224
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #89 on: May 19, 2016, 09:57:53 AM »
In this particular case, religion is a fairly good proxy for danger.

So, just to be clear . . . your argument is that all Muslims are likely to be terrorists?

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #90 on: May 19, 2016, 10:07:20 AM »
It frightens me that you hear and choose to believe something other than what he actually says.  Why can't we take someone's word at face value?

That's a good question.  Why can't we?  I guess that would mean we'd have to understand his positions to be anti-illegal immigration, and not just totally anti-Mexican, and for waiting to allow Muslim immigration until we can properly vet who is coming into the country, instead of just saying he's completely anti-Muslim. 

But that wouldn't fit the narrative that he's a complete bigot, so we can't do that.

FYI - The definition of bigot is "a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot).

Why should people who claim to be Christian be given a free pass on being vetted to a country?  Shouldn't everyone be vetted equally?  Why do you think that refusing to accept the members of a particular religious group is somehow not a form of bigotry?

All immigrants should be scrutinized.

Some should be scrutinized more than others. All countries should have discriminatory immigration policies, and always have. America's are MORE open than almost any country in the world.

European countries give virtually NO scrutiny to people coming from other European countries (who happen generally to be white, educated, Christian/Secular people with similar culture). They apply strict scrutiny to people coming from other places (who happen to be mostly black/brown, often Muslim, uneducated and from dissimilar cultures). This policy seems to be considered totally OK, and actually admired by most of the world.

But when an American proposes having different levels of scrutiny depending on country of origin, it is BIGOTED and RACIST.

The hypocrisy is stunning.

My understanding is the opposite. The US accepts a limited number of people in a quota system from specific countries. And the vetting process is incredibly strenuous. Whereas many other countries are much more immediately welcoming of others. I don't know if our policy is good/bad/whatever. But I think it's very hard to immigrate to the US. On the other hand, I think 25% of London is Muslim now due to migration. So your data may be off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umqvYhb3wf4

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #91 on: May 19, 2016, 10:24:17 AM »
In this particular case, religion is a fairly good proxy for danger.

So, just to be clear . . . your argument is that all Muslims are likely to be terrorists?

Nope.  But nice try.  What I'm saying is that it is MORE likely that a Muslim will be a terrorist than someone of a different religion or from a non-Muslim region, so it would make sense to ensure we do our due diligence when admitting someone from a high-risk country or background. 

If there was a wave of people seeking refuge from Syria, and a wave of people seeking refuge from Japan, it would be idiotic to not devote more resources to screening the Syrian ones versus the Japanese ones.  You can say that's biased, unfair, whatever, but you can't tell me it's not reality. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23224
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #92 on: May 19, 2016, 11:04:57 AM »
In this particular case, religion is a fairly good proxy for danger.

So, just to be clear . . . your argument is that all Muslims are likely to be terrorists?

Nope.  But nice try.

OK.  So we agree that all Muslims are not likely to be terrorists.  Then why are we basing screening around religion?  Is there any evidence that it's more likely any given Muslim traveling will be a terrorist than someone of another religion?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619 - Most terror attacks in the US weren't caused by Muslims.


What I'm saying is that it is MORE likely that a Muslim will be a terrorist than someone of a different religion

Now I'm confused.  You're saying that all Muslims are more likely to be terrorists?


If there was a wave of people seeking refuge from Syria, and a wave of people seeking refuge from Japan, it would be idiotic to not devote more resources to screening the Syrian ones versus the Japanese ones.  You can say that's biased, unfair, whatever, but you can't tell me it's not reality.


No, I follow your reasoning on this point.  It makes sense.  You're conflating the two, but as I said already . . . there's a big difference between paying closer attention to people from war-torn areas and claiming that religion is an indicator of terrorism.  In the latter you are effectively making the claim that the religion itself causes terrorism.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #93 on: May 19, 2016, 11:10:44 AM »
You're making two different statements and confusing them.

You said "your argument is that all Muslims are likely to be terrorists?"

Which is different that my point, "a Muslim is more likely to be a terrorist"

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23224
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #94 on: May 19, 2016, 11:18:10 AM »
You're making two different statements and confusing them.

You said "your argument is that all Muslims are likely to be terrorists?"

Which is different that my point, "a Muslim is more likely to be a terrorist"

I read them the same way.  Can you explain the difference?

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3575
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #95 on: May 19, 2016, 11:29:57 AM »
It frightens me that you hear and choose to believe something other than what he actually says.  Why can't we take someone's word at face value?

That's a good question.  Why can't we?  I guess that would mean we'd have to understand his positions to be anti-illegal immigration, and not just totally anti-Mexican, and for waiting to allow Muslim immigration until we can properly vet who is coming into the country, instead of just saying he's completely anti-Muslim. 

But that wouldn't fit the narrative that he's a complete bigot, so we can't do that.

FYI - The definition of bigot is "a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot).

Why should people who claim to be Christian be given a free pass on being vetted to a country?  Shouldn't everyone be vetted equally?  Why do you think that refusing to accept the members of a particular religious group is somehow not a form of bigotry?

All immigrants should be scrutinized.

Some should be scrutinized more than others. All countries should have discriminatory immigration policies, and always have. America's are MORE open than almost any country in the world.

European countries give virtually NO scrutiny to people coming from other European countries (who happen generally to be white, educated, Christian/Secular people with similar culture). They apply strict scrutiny to people coming from other places (who happen to be mostly black/brown, often Muslim, uneducated and from dissimilar cultures). This policy seems to be considered totally OK, and actually admired by most of the world.

But when an American proposes having different levels of scrutiny depending on country of origin, it is BIGOTED and RACIST.

The hypocrisy is stunning.

What are you talking about?!? 

We have different levels of scrutiny based on country of origin right now.

You might be less outraged if you, how to put this delicately, knew what you were talking about.   

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #96 on: May 19, 2016, 11:45:09 AM »
It frightens me that you hear and choose to believe something other than what he actually says.  Why can't we take someone's word at face value?

That's a good question.  Why can't we?  I guess that would mean we'd have to understand his positions to be anti-illegal immigration, and not just totally anti-Mexican, and for waiting to allow Muslim immigration until we can properly vet who is coming into the country, instead of just saying he's completely anti-Muslim. 

But that wouldn't fit the narrative that he's a complete bigot, so we can't do that.

FYI - The definition of bigot is "a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot).

Why should people who claim to be Christian be given a free pass on being vetted to a country?  Shouldn't everyone be vetted equally?  Why do you think that refusing to accept the members of a particular religious group is somehow not a form of bigotry?

All immigrants should be scrutinized.

Some should be scrutinized more than others. All countries should have discriminatory immigration policies, and always have. America's are MORE open than almost any country in the world.

European countries give virtually NO scrutiny to people coming from other European countries (who happen generally to be white, educated, Christian/Secular people with similar culture). They apply strict scrutiny to people coming from other places (who happen to be mostly black/brown, often Muslim, uneducated and from dissimilar cultures). This policy seems to be considered totally OK, and actually admired by most of the world.

But when an American proposes having different levels of scrutiny depending on country of origin, it is BIGOTED and RACIST.

The hypocrisy is stunning.

What are you talking about?!? 

We have different levels of scrutiny based on country of origin right now.

You might be less outraged if you, how to put this delicately, knew what you were talking about.

I am aware that it is easier/harder to emigrate to the US depending on where you are from. A good friend of mine is Indian and used to live in the US on a student Visa. After graduation, she got a job and shortly after had to transfer to her company's Canadian office. She is in the process of becoming a Canadian citizen, after which it will be much easier for her to live and work in the US.

So yes, I know what I am talking about.

The differing levels of scrutiny that we apply are considered racist and bigoted by many people.

I am saying we should have even higher levels of scrutiny, up to and including a general ban on immigration of people from certain parts of the world.

Which is again, considered bigoted and racist.

On another note, this isn't JUST about potential terrorists. That is only part of it. Another poster referred to London's Muslim population. There is a problem with cities, areas and regions in Europe becoming increasingly Islamic. So far, that hasn't happened in the US outside of perhaps Dearborn. I think it is in best interests of America to avoid mass immigration from Islamic countries in order to ensure our cities don't turn into enclaves of unassimilated people who re-create the conditions of Aleppo on American soil.

swick

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2877
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #97 on: May 19, 2016, 11:51:44 AM »
MOD NOTE: Complaints are coming in...again. It is unfair to the community and members for a couple of people to keep straying from the OP's topic because they feel the need to debate the same issues over and over across multiple thread which results in the thread getting locked.

If you feel the need, open your own clearly labeled topic in off topic and take your thoughtful, considerate, still following the forum rules, but off topic discussions there. If we have to keep locking threads because of the same people, we will be giving out warnings/bans.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #98 on: May 19, 2016, 12:11:00 PM »
You're making two different statements and confusing them.

You said "your argument is that all Muslims are likely to be terrorists?"

Which is different that my point, "a Muslim is more likely to be a terrorist"

I read them the same way.  Can you explain the difference?

Sure.  Take 100 people.  All of them are Muslim.  Are all of them terrorists?  Obviously not.

Take a different 100 people.  All backgrounds.  You know 1 is a terrorist.  Of your 100 people, 10 are Muslim.  Where would you start your investigation?  I know where I'd start mine.


That's the difference.


Edit: Sorry, saw the mod note after I submitted.

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Re: Contingency planning for a Trump presidency
« Reply #99 on: May 19, 2016, 12:12:59 PM »
MOD NOTE: Complaints are coming in...again. It is unfair to the community and members for a couple of people to keep straying from the OP's topic because they feel the need to debate the same issues over and over across multiple thread which results in the thread getting locked.

If you feel the need, open your own clearly labeled topic in off topic and take your thoughtful, considerate, still following the forum rules, but off topic discussions there. If we have to keep locking threads because of the same people, we will be giving out warnings/bans.


Can't you just split the discussion out into a separate thread?

Though I'm not sure this thread ever had a topic to deviate from. The OP basically went into a rant about how Trump was a sociopath and how horrible it would be if he becomes president, comparing it to Germany circa 1929. Then asked people's thoughts.

There are ways to start a discussion about contingency planning without centering it around the person. The original post in this thread centered on Trump and his sociopathness/planned actions. It's not surprising to me the thread discussed that topic.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!