Trump Voters.... why?

[thepokercab]

Humor aside, I find the drama around illegal immigration to be pretty pointless. Politicians a long time ago figured out that they can scare voters into fearing 'the other' and so illegal immigrants are constantly hoisted up as some sort of boogeyman that is destroying America.  The truth is that illegal immigration isn't some new phenomena.  Its been around forever. Human beings fucking move around. They migrate.  Sometimes its ebbs and flows, but stays pretty consistent over time.  The people here pay taxes, they buy shit, they commit crime at the same or lower rates as regular citizens, their kids go to school with our kids.  Some of them are also asshats i'm sure. 

Yet for whatever reason folks get really caught up about the geographic location you were born in.  I really just don't understand it.  America seems to be churning along just fine with this massive problem. 

[Bicycle_B]

I wondered how much anchor babies figured into the welfare benefits, so those babies may be a driving force, you are right. I guess several of you think this is a good thing. Ok then!

The Camarota article uses census data, but you PP's are right, it extrapolates data from census data and does not give details on methodology, that I could see, anyway.

Do yall think it is entirely wrong then, that immigrants of both legal and illegal stripe use welfare benefits at a rate lower than natives? Do you have data for that?

I'm not really sure.  I suspect the net amounts are small compared to:

1. The general benefit of adding dedicated new workers to the economy

2. The moral / personal aspects, such as
a. I'm not Native American, it would be hypocritical to stop someone else's family from coming here. 
b. Economically, "free trade" is missing the biggest factor.  Labor is more important than capital (look at the income stats - wages exceed profits) yet only capital is free to cross borders.  If the world dropped all borders regarding residence of labor, logically the end result would be a huge economic boom.  Therefore even if the USA had a small short term benefit through restricting immigration, humanity's productive well being would suffer.  In other words, protectionism has the moral side effect of stealing from the mouths of others whether it is protectionism of labor or capital. (Not sure about that, just seems logical.)
c. As a patriotic American, my favorite symbol of America is the Statue of Liberty.  I don't want us to abandon the noble sentiments inscribed on it.  They are what drew every branch of family to America in the 1880s-1890s, except the branch that came over one ship after the Mayflower and then fought in the Revolutionary War (Continental Army, not British).  If this is repeat of a), it's because that's how I feel.

https://www.nps.gov/stli/learn/historyculture/colossus.htm

To be fair, it can be argued that this statue was just a French pat on the back for America's foolishness in getting my ancestors off Europe's hands.

3. The efficiency aspect.  The benefits that "natives" use weight towards cash benefits.  The benefits immigrants are shown to use most are productive ones.  Illegal immigrants aren't coming and drawing Social Security, they're paying into that through fake IDs and getting nothing back; only we natives benefit.  The only benefit "they" are getting is for their kids to grow up healthy, which benefits the economy (including the government's ledger).  It's not the amount of benefits that is good or bad, it's that "their" benefits are productive in building the economy while "our" benefits are extractive.  Simply put, their kids are going to pay my Social Security and that's more than it cost to pay their youthful doctor visits.

[iris lily]

I wondered how much anchor babies figured into the welfare benefits, so those babies may be a driving force, you are right. I guess several of you think this is a good thing. Ok then!

The Camarota article uses census data, but you PP's are right, it extrapolates data from census data and does not give details on methodology, that I could see, anyway.

Do yall think it is entirely wrong then, that immigrants of both legal and illegal stripe use welfare benefits at a rate lower than natives? Do you have data for that?

I'm not really sure.  I suspect the net amounts are small compared to:

1. The general benefit of adding dedicated new workers to the economy

2. The moral / personal aspects, such as
a. I'm not Native American, it would be hypocritical to stop someone else's family from coming here. 
b. Economically, "free trade" is missing the biggest factor.  Labor is more important than capital (look at the income stats - wages exceed profits) yet only capital is free to cross borders.  If the world dropped all borders regarding residence of labor, logically the end result would be a huge economic boom.  Therefore even if the USA had a small short term benefit through restricting immigration, humanity's productive well being would suffer.  In other words, protectionism has the moral side effect of stealing from the mouths of others whether it is protectionism of labor or capital. (Not sure about that, just seems logical.)
c. As a patriotic American, my favorite symbol of America is the Statue of Liberty.  I don't want us to abandon the noble sentiments inscribed on it.  They are what drew every branch of family to America in the 1880s-1890s, except the branch that came over one ship after the Mayflower and then fought in the Revolutionary War (Continental Army, not British).  If this is repeat of a), it's because that's how I feel.

https://www.nps.gov/stli/learn/historyculture/colossus.htm

3. The efficiency aspect.  The benefits that "natives" use weight towards cash benefits.  The benefits immigrants are shown to use most are productive ones.  Illegal immigrants aren't coming and drawing Social Security, they're paying into that through fake IDs and getting nothing back; only we natives benefit.  The only benefit "they" are getting is for their kids to grow up healthy, which benefits the economy (including the government's ledger).  It's not the amount of benefits that is good or bad, it's that "their" benefits are productive in building the economy while "our" benefits are extractive.  Simply put, their kids are going to pay my Social Security and that's more than it cost to pay their youthful doctor visits.

I have thought about the SS paid in by illegal immigrants (shame on you for not using correct-speak "undocumented workers" ) and there is one Google hit that headlned So Security system broke by the year 20xx without contributins of illegals. But there are plenty of projections that show it broke by the year 20xx anyway.

[Mother Fussbudget]

All of the angst and all of the drama around this election will not matter.  The latest polls are showing a large Hillary Clinton lead: 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

It's not the *actual* vote I'm worried about, it's the internet hijacking / vote tally tampering that worries me.  Karl Rove pays teams of tech teams to hijack specific internet traffic, and throw the vote.  In 2012 the hacktivist group Anonymous pre-empted a Rove sponsored hack against the voting counts in Ohio on election night.  And with the recent lack of scruples displayed, I would expect the problem to be more widespread this election season - probably on BOTH sides of the electorate divide.

[GuitarStv]

There's more serious punishment for illegal workers in the US than there is for the people who hire and profit from illegal workers.

Do you have a source for that?  If they decide to go after you for hiring illegal immigrants, it can involve prison time.  One of the the problems is inconsistent application.

I personally know an individual sentenced to 2 years for issues related to hiring illegal immigrants and associated social security # fraud.  They also seized over $1M of assets.  Ruined the business and his life.

My understanding (which seems to jive with the info on this website:  http://www.fairus.org/issue/the-law-against-hiring-or-harboring-illegal-aliens) was that hiring someone worker is just a misdemeanor . . . unless you're doing stuff like making false documents, altering records, obstructing INS inspections, etc which has greater penalty.

[iris lily]

All of the angst and all of the drama around this election will not matter.  The latest polls are showing a large Hillary Clinton lead: 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

It's not the *actual* vote I'm worried about, it's the internet hijacking / vote tally tampering that worries me.  Karl Rove pays teams of tech teams to hijack specific internet traffic, and throw the vote.  In 2012 the hacktivist group Anonymous pre-empted a Rove sponsored hack against the voting counts in Ohio on election night.  And with the recent lack of scruples displayed, I would expect the problem to be more widespread this election season - probably on BOTH sides of the electorate divide.

In my urban core cotnf area, shenanigans are carried out by Dems. always. Usually against other Dems because really who else  is running?

In the recent primary there was no way to check in voters at one polling place because machnes were down, so everyne got to vote. You walk in, you vote. This is Hillary land, old
Bernie did not resonate with the voters in the housing project.

[Mother Fussbudget]

+ (saw this in Barron's magazine, and found it appropriate to this conversation)

"[T]he betting odds on the final day of Brexit suggested a 76% probability that 'Stay' would win. Today, Clinton has a 71% probability of winning. If we learned anything from Brexit, it's that a polling lead within the margin of error during a populist environment does not equate to a 75% probability."

[boy_bye]

If Trump becomes President and re industrialises America, companies will install a lot of automation and will not re employ large numbers of blue collar workers.

Yes, seriously.  Those jobs are never coming back. Not ever.  And Trump knows that.  And he doesn't care.

That Archdruid article was very good.  It does touch upon what I think is Trump's main draw - a big old "fuck you" to Obama and his supporters for perceived and actual slights and humiliations.   There is nothing that anyone who hates Obama, for whatever reason, would love better than to see Trump win, to see Obama have to stand there and shake his hand on the White House lawn.  What happens after that would not matter - it would be a collective cathartic howl of satisfaction.  Fox news and other Republicans have successfully tied lower class white culture and values into an economic platform that actively disenfranchises them, and now Trump is moving in for the kill.  He is using white working class resentment as a weapon, and it could work.  Even if Trump loses, this isn't over, not by a long shot. 

Putting myself in the shoes of a potential lower income working class Trump supporter, I can understand on some level how it must feel to be told by the media, by the popular culture, that you are less than, that your culture is inferior, that your beliefs are inferior.  I can imagine how it feels to be marginalized because you don't have an education, and told that college is the holy grail and that other aspirations are not worthy of respect.  I can imagine how it feels to be the butt of all the jokes on late night comedy.   I would be pretty mad too to be honest.  Maybe mad enough to want to burn it all down, just to feel a real sense of power over some aspect of my life and regain my dignity.  Issues don't matter.  Nothing else matters if you have that mindset. 

Trump understands this.  What makes him really scary is that it is fairly obvious that he doesn't care that much about who is voting for him.  He is using this resentment, as other demagogues have, to gain power for it's own sake.  What he will do once he is in office is truly an unknown.  He is already talking about the election being "rigged" if he loses.  He is playing the long game, and that is more frightening than this election.  If he loses, he will likely not concede willingly, and if you think Fox Media is bad, wait until you see Trump Media. 

The pitchforks are coming folks, unless we figure out a way to defuse it fast.

I thought this was a fantastic and very insightful post. The Trump phenom really does seem like a big old FUCK YOU to the powers that be more than it is anything else -- the powers that want hope and change and things that a lot of people feel they don't have access to or interest in. Fuck you with your Hope and Change. I don't want it. I don't want new gender roles. I don't want an end to segregation. I don't want any of that shit. Fuck you.

I grew up in a variety of trailer parks all over the American South, and I saw this Fuck You phenomenon up close and personal -- in my family, in my dad's friends, in our neighborhoods. Even as a kid, I hated it because it struck me as simple-minded, short-sighted, and needlessly belligerent. So I worked my butt off to get out of it and get to a place in life where I rarely have to hang out with the kind of people who have bumper stickers of little boys gleefully peeing on stuff.

A lot of people are scared of change. A lot of people think it's perfectly reasonable that white dudes should be in charge of most everything. The Obama family really pisses them off. The idea of a woman being in the White House really pisses them off. The idea of people from other countries having opportunities that used to be for Americans only pisses them off. So they resist the rhetoric of progress, the narrative that history is and should be marching toward more equality and fairness and inclusion. Fuck all that college-boy shit. 

These types of people have always been part of political life, but not at the forefront, because most political candidates try to keep their rhetoric at a civilized level. Trump has no such compunction, and has whipped this segment up into a frenzy this election cycle. And you can't argue with them, or point to anything terrible Trump has done as evidence that he shouldn't be president, because honestly they don't give a shit about what he says or what he's done or what his policies might be. They just love the fact that, like the bumper sticker so many of them love, he is gleefully pissing on stuff.

That's just one segment. There are lots of others, including the one where generally reasonable people are putting themselves through huge amounts of cognitive dissonance trying to rationalize a vote for Trump over Clinton. This one, to me, is the saddest.

[Jack]

I think you've been reading too many internet conspiracy theories.  It's not like we have one system that captures the votes in the same way in the thousands of precincts across the country.  I do think that hackers can impact the election if wikileaks reveals something damaging about Hillary as they are promising.

Election fraud used to be hard because you'd need co-conspirators in every precinct you wanted to fix (which, modulo gerrymandering, could be a large fraction of the total number of precincts), and because there was a massive paper trail involved.

Now, with electronic voting machines, you only really need one hacker and there's no paper trail. Although you're correct that there's no one system in use throughout the country, there is one system in use throughout each particular state. It's a lot easier.

That, by itself, lends no credence to conspiracy theories. What does are the facts that (a) the utility of a paper printout of the vote is blatantly obvious and easy to implement, yet voting machine companies have refused to do it, (b) electronic voting machines have proven to be incredibly insecure, revealing gross incompetence (in the best case -- malice is the other possibility) by both the engineers who designed them and the election officials who certified them, and (c) the fact that the CEO of Diebold, which made the voting machines in Ohio in the 2004 election, infamously wrote that he was "committed to delivering the election to Bush."

[Northwestie]

Oh, I think the Donald is going to auger right into the ground on this one.  Wait until the debates - shoot, in an interview he didn't seem to know that Crimea had been invaded by Russia, couldn't figure out the difference between the Kurds and the Cuds Forces, nor does he understand the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah.  These are items any 16 year old who occasionally watches the news or reads a paper will know.  Trump says he'll become knowledgeable on the subjects "when he needs to be" (!!!???) and will "hire good people".

How reassuring.  Here's some other brilliant statements:

What does he think about cyber warfare? “Cyber has to be in our thought process,” he said. He thinks cyber should be thought about.

Asked if Japan should have its own nuclear arsenal, Trump said, “Well, it’s a position that we have to talk about, and it’s a position that at some point is something that we have to talk about.” His position is to have a position, which we will talk about at some point.

Asked what he would do if the Chinese occupied the Senkaku Islands, Trump said, “I don’t like to tell you what I’d do, because I don’t want to.” He also doesn’t want to tell you because he has no idea what you’re talking about.

“I have really strong feelings on China,” Trump said.

Pick an issue, any issue, and you can be sure Trump has more feelings than thoughts about it.

“I’ve had very strong feelings on foreign policy,” Trump said, “and I’ve had very strong feelings on defense and offense.”

[Midwest]

There's more serious punishment for illegal workers in the US than there is for the people who hire and profit from illegal workers.

Do you have a source for that?  If they decide to go after you for hiring illegal immigrants, it can involve prison time.  One of the the problems is inconsistent application.

I personally know an individual sentenced to 2 years for issues related to hiring illegal immigrants and associated social security # fraud.  They also seized over $1M of assets.  Ruined the business and his life.

My understanding (which seems to jive with the info on this website:  http://www.fairus.org/issue/the-law-against-hiring-or-harboring-illegal-aliens) was that hiring someone worker is just a misdemeanor . . . unless you're doing stuff like making false documents, altering records, obstructing INS inspections, etc which has greater penalty.

Steve:

I'll take a look @ the link.  The case I'm referring to involved some other aspects (social security #'s) and the DHS, but the case was presented as evil rich guy taking advantage of poor immigrants.  This person was a roofer and a recent storm meant everyone's roof was getting replaced. 

Interestingly, immediately before that I observed many roofs being replaced (due to large storm and some by him) and anyone and everyone observed questionable hiring practices by many of the companies involved.  He, however, was the only one they picked for prosecution.

[Glenstache]

All of the angst and all of the drama around this election will not matter.  The latest polls are showing a large Hillary Clinton lead: 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

It's not the *actual* vote I'm worried about, it's the internet hijacking / vote tally tampering that worries me.  Karl Rove pays teams of tech teams to hijack specific internet traffic, and throw the vote.  In 2012 the hacktivist group Anonymous pre-empted a Rove sponsored hack against the voting counts in Ohio on election night.  And with the recent lack of scruples displayed, I would expect the problem to be more widespread this election season - probably on BOTH sides of the electorate divide.

I think you've been reading too many internet conspiracy theories.  It's not like we have one system that captures the votes in the same way in the thousands of precincts across the country.  I do think that hackers can impact the election if wikileaks reveals something damaging about Hillary as they are promising.

Our vote rigging methods are usually more obvious and overt:
Recent north carolina  court decision
Heterogeneous distribution of voting machines (see Ohio elections under Kenneth Blackwell, and his subsequent bragging about it)
Bush v Gore

There is also a long history of reports of shady things happening with the Diebold machines (as mentioned above).

[GuitarStv]

There's more serious punishment for illegal workers in the US than there is for the people who hire and profit from illegal workers.

Do you have a source for that?  If they decide to go after you for hiring illegal immigrants, it can involve prison time.  One of the the problems is inconsistent application.

I personally know an individual sentenced to 2 years for issues related to hiring illegal immigrants and associated social security # fraud.  They also seized over $1M of assets.  Ruined the business and his life.

My understanding (which seems to jive with the info on this website:  http://www.fairus.org/issue/the-law-against-hiring-or-harboring-illegal-aliens) was that hiring someone worker is just a misdemeanor . . . unless you're doing stuff like making false documents, altering records, obstructing INS inspections, etc which has greater penalty.

Steve:

I'll take a look @ the link.  The case I'm referring to involved some other aspects (social security #'s) and the DHS, but the case was presented as evil rich guy taking advantage of poor immigrants.  This person was a roofer and a recent storm meant everyone's roof was getting replaced. 

Interestingly, immediately before that I observed many roofs being replaced (due to large storm and some by him) and anyone and everyone observed questionable hiring practices by many of the companies involved.  He, however, was the only one they picked for prosecution.

With your friend, the jail time likely has to do with the fraud he committed though, not due to the hiring of illegal immigrants.  It's pretty rare to be investigated for hiring illegal immigrants though, so your friend might have been correct that he was the only one picked for prosecution.  In the entire 2013 year for example, ICE only audited about 3000 employers across the US.  In 2014 that number was only about 1300 (http://www.hngn.com/articles/101677/20150617/employers-who-unlawfully-hire-illegal-immigrants-probably-wont-trouble-report.htm).

[Midwest]

There's more serious punishment for illegal workers in the US than there is for the people who hire and profit from illegal workers.

Do you have a source for that?  If they decide to go after you for hiring illegal immigrants, it can involve prison time.  One of the the problems is inconsistent application.

I personally know an individual sentenced to 2 years for issues related to hiring illegal immigrants and associated social security # fraud.  They also seized over $1M of assets.  Ruined the business and his life.

My understanding (which seems to jive with the info on this website:  http://www.fairus.org/issue/the-law-against-hiring-or-harboring-illegal-aliens) was that hiring someone worker is just a misdemeanor . . . unless you're doing stuff like making false documents, altering records, obstructing INS inspections, etc which has greater penalty.

Steve:

I'll take a look @ the link.  The case I'm referring to involved some other aspects (social security #'s) and the DHS, but the case was presented as evil rich guy taking advantage of poor immigrants.  This person was a roofer and a recent storm meant everyone's roof was getting replaced. 

Interestingly, immediately before that I observed many roofs being replaced (due to large storm and some by him) and anyone and everyone observed questionable hiring practices by many of the companies involved.  He, however, was the only one they picked for prosecution.

With your friend, the jail time likely has to do with the fraud he committed though, not due to the hiring of illegal immigrants.  It's pretty rare to be investigated for hiring illegal immigrants though, so your friend might have been correct that he was the only one picked for prosecution.  In the entire 2013 year for example, ICE only audited about 3000 employers across the US.  In 2014 that number was only about 1300 (http://www.hngn.com/articles/101677/20150617/employers-who-unlawfully-hire-illegal-immigrants-probably-wont-trouble-report.htm).

Steve:

Not a friend of mine, more of a friend of a friend.  Never met the person, but I do know quite a few details.  I simply found it interesting that many others were doing very similar things and he was the only prosecution of which I'm aware.

MW

[iris lily]

... Trump says he'll become knowledgeable on the subjects "when he needs to be" (!!!???) and will "hire good people...

Excuse you, he has already hired Omarossa. No lie. I heard a rumor that his one competant child, Ivanka, may be on his staff.

But  then is that really no different than Billl Clinton turning over healthcare to his wife whom we did not elect,? so thanks for that Clintons.

I actually do not mind some of Trump's lack of knowledge, any outsider will have that.

I do mind his essential personality that I believe will cause him to pay no mind to sensible advice given to him. All the experts in the world will not get through to him. I believe his attention span to be short and his interest in following through in complex issues to be weak.

[dramaman]

... Trump says he'll become knowledgeable on the subjects "when he needs to be" (!!!???) and will "hire good people...

Excuse you, he has already hired Omarossa. No lie. I heard a eu or that his one cmpetwnt child, Ivanka, may be on his staff.

But  then that is really no different than Billl Clinton turning over healthcare to his wife whom we did not elect, so thanks for that Clintons.

I acrually do not mind some of Trump's lack of onowledge, an outsider will jave that.

I do mind his essential personality that I believe will cause him to pay no mind to sensible advice given to him. All the experts in the world will not getbthrough to him. I believe his attention span to be short and his interest in following through in complex issues to be weak.

When Bill Clinton turned over healthcare to Hillary Clinton, she already had a long resume for working on public issues both at the national and state level - more experience than most Americans would have in two lifetimes.

[Glenstache]

... Trump says he'll become knowledgeable on the subjects "when he needs to be" (!!!???) and will "hire good people...

Excuse you, he has already hired Omarossa. No lie. I heard a eu or that his one cmpetwnt child, Ivanka, may be on his staff.

But  then that is really no different than Billl Clinton turning over healthcare to his wife whom we did not elect, so thanks for that Clintons.

I acrually do not mind some of Trump's lack of onowledge, an outsider will jave that.

I do mind his essential personality that I believe will cause him to pay no mind to sensible advice given to him. All the experts in the world will not getbthrough to him. I believe his attention span to be short and his interest in following through in complex issues to be weak.

When Bill Clinton turned over healthcare to Hillary Clinton, she already had a long resume for working on public issues both at the national and state level - more experience than most Americans would have in two lifetimes.

And the president often delegates tasks to staff that are not directly elected, such as the chief of staff. His first lady just happened to be highly competent.

[Northwestie]

... Trump says he'll become knowledgeable on the subjects "when he needs to be" (!!!???) and will "hire good people...

Excuse you, he has already hired Omarossa. No lie. I heard a rumor that his one competant child, Ivanka, may be on his staff.

But  then is that really no different than Billl Clinton turning over healthcare to his wife whom we did not elect,? so thanks for that Clintons.

I actually do not mind some of Trump's lack of knowledge, any outsider will have that.

I do mind his essential personality that I believe will cause him to pay no mind to sensible advice given to him. All the experts in the world will not get through to him. I believe his attention span to be short and his interest in following through in complex issues to be weak.

You're kidding me right?  Trump has even less knowledge of the world than did G.W., who didn't have the character or world knowledge to push back against the neo-cons brain child to invade Iraq.  Just contemplate the trouble we would get into with an even DUMBER president with an ego that needs another chair.  Dumb as a stump ego-maniac.

[Gin1984]

People are people.  If they need work and you pay them to do stuff, they're going to be around.  If you don't want them around, stop paying them to do stuff . . . and then deal with the consequences of losing that huge source of very cheap labor.

How long does that labor stay cheap once their status in this country is legitimized?  Once those illegally become legitimate, presumably we would be paying them normal American wages.  Since most of these workers are lower skilled, we have added millions of low skill workers for Americans to complete against.

We used to have Americans doing the work, and it was always that cheap.  It just never increased once Americans no longer wanted to do the work.  And even if we could pay them normal wages, the cost to our economy for the poor/middle class would be huge. 

[Glenstache]

People are people.  If they need work and you pay them to do stuff, they're going to be around.  If you don't want them around, stop paying them to do stuff . . . and then deal with the consequences of losing that huge source of very cheap labor.

How long does that labor stay cheap once their status in this country is legitimized?  Once those illegally become legitimate, presumably we would be paying them normal American wages.  Since most of these workers are lower skilled, we have added millions of low skill workers for Americans to complete against.

We used to have Americans doing the work, and it was always that cheap.  It just never increased once Americans no longer wanted to do the work.  And even if we could pay them normal wages, the cost to our economy for the poor/middle class would be huge.

And would likely further drive automation in agriculture.

[Midwest]

People are people.  If they need work and you pay them to do stuff, they're going to be around.  If you don't want them around, stop paying them to do stuff . . . and then deal with the consequences of losing that huge source of very cheap labor.

How long does that labor stay cheap once their status in this country is legitimized?  Once those illegally become legitimate, presumably we would be paying them normal American wages.  Since most of these workers are lower skilled, we have added millions of low skill workers for Americans to complete against.

We used to have Americans doing the work, and it was always that cheap.  It just never increased once Americans no longer wanted to do the work.  And even if we could pay them normal wages, the cost to our economy for the poor/middle class would be huge.

Gin - Illegal immigrants are doing a lot more than just farm work.  Construction, maids, hotels, restaurants.  Many of those classes have people in this country illegally doing the work competing against citizens and/or those here legally.  The result is wages are driven down for legal workers and/or automation is delayed. 

Rather than having all of these people working illegally for less than legal wages, let's stop the inflow, deport who needs deported (certainly not all), and come up with a plan that is good for our country.

[dramaman]

People are people.  If they need work and you pay them to do stuff, they're going to be around.  If you don't want them around, stop paying them to do stuff . . . and then deal with the consequences of losing that huge source of very cheap labor.

How long does that labor stay cheap once their status in this country is legitimized?  Once those illegally become legitimate, presumably we would be paying them normal American wages.  Since most of these workers are lower skilled, we have added millions of low skill workers for Americans to complete against.

We used to have Americans doing the work, and it was always that cheap.  It just never increased once Americans no longer wanted to do the work.  And even if we could pay them normal wages, the cost to our economy for the poor/middle class would be huge.

Gin - Illegal immigrants are doing a lot more than just farm work.  Construction, maids, hotels, restaurants.  Many of those classes have people in this country illegally doing the work competing against citizens and/or those here legally.  The result is wages are driven down for legal workers and/or automation is delayed. 

Rather than having all of these people working illegally for less than legal wages, let's stop the inflow, deport who needs deported (certainly not all), and come up with a plan that is good for our country.

Or maybe we could just simply make it easier to work here legally? From an economic perspective, trying to enforce a closed border is working against the basic principles of the free market. It is akin to trying to stop the sharing of free mp3 files on the internet. The solution that worked wasn't to prevent people from sharing files, wasn't to enforce hefty fines. The solution that worked was to give people an inexpensive, legal alternative that was easy to use such that most people preferred using legal methods over illegal ones.

[Midwest]

People are people.  If they need work and you pay them to do stuff, they're going to be around.  If you don't want them around, stop paying them to do stuff . . . and then deal with the consequences of losing that huge source of very cheap labor.

How long does that labor stay cheap once their status in this country is legitimized?  Once those illegally become legitimate, presumably we would be paying them normal American wages.  Since most of these workers are lower skilled, we have added millions of low skill workers for Americans to complete against.

We used to have Americans doing the work, and it was always that cheap.  It just never increased once Americans no longer wanted to do the work.  And even if we could pay them normal wages, the cost to our economy for the poor/middle class would be huge.

Gin - Illegal immigrants are doing a lot more than just farm work.  Construction, maids, hotels, restaurants.  Many of those classes have people in this country illegally doing the work competing against citizens and/or those here legally.  The result is wages are driven down for legal workers and/or automation is delayed. 

Rather than having all of these people working illegally for less than legal wages, let's stop the inflow, deport who needs deported (certainly not all), and come up with a plan that is good for our country.

Or maybe we could just simply make it easier to work here legally? From an economic perspective, trying to enforce a closed border is working against the basic principles of the free market. It is akin to trying to stop the sharing of free mp3 files on the internet. The solution that worked wasn't to prevent people from sharing files, wasn't to enforce hefty fines. The solution that worked was to give people an inexpensive, legal alternative that was easy to use such that most people preferred using legal methods over illegal ones.

Drama:

I agree that we should provide a legal opportunity for some to work here and enforce laws against employers.  The key is some. 

Trump wants to send them all back and the left won't even acknowledge some are here illegally.

When you have a society at the southern border with a serious crime problem and a corrupt govt, I think it makes sense to have some border security and know who enters our country.

[iris lily]

... Trump says he'll become knowledgeable on the subjects "when he needs to be" (!!!???) and will "hire good people...

Excuse you, he has already hired Omarosa. No lie. I heard a rumor that his one competant child, Ivanka, may be on his staff.

But  then is that really no different than Billl Clinton turning over healthcare to his wife whom we did not elect,? so thanks for that Clintons.

I actually do not mind some of Trump's lack of knowledge, any outsider will have that.

I do mind his essential personality that I believe will cause him to pay no mind to sensible advice given to him. All the experts in the world will not get through to him. I believe his attention span to be short and his interest in following through in complex issues to be weak.

You're kidding me right?  ...

I did say "some" of his lack of knowledge didnt bother me. some of it.

I wnt play the "he is stupid" game bcausw
I dnt thnk he is, but I an cnfident you dnt onw his IQ?

Does he come off as stupid? Sure.

I would like to see more trump supporters n this thread but they likely wont come on, expecting an a,bush.

[arebelspy]

Oh, I think the Donald is going to auger right into the ground on this one.  Wait until the debates - shoot, in an interview he didn't seem to know that Crimea had been invaded by Russia, couldn't figure out the difference between the Kurds and the Cuds Forces, nor does he understand the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah.  These are items any 16 year old who occasionally watches the news or reads a paper will know.

Why do you think the people voting for him care about any of these things?  None of that matters in this election.

+ (saw this in Barron's magazine, and found it appropriate to this conversation)

"[T]he betting odds on the final day of Brexit suggested a 76% probability that 'Stay' would win. Today, Clinton has a 71% probability of winning. If we learned anything from Brexit, it's that a polling lead within the margin of error during a populist environment does not equate to a 75% probability."

Yes, stranger things have happened and Trump could win if there is suddenly a major recession, Hillary gets arrested by the DOJ, etc.  But I don't think Brexit = Trump.  Suspending a trade association from your country is not the same as electing a meaner, stupider version of George W Bush to President.

I disagree.  This is from an email I sent a few weeks ago:

In a very, VERY similar vein that Ali and I were talking about yesterday: Brexit.

I did NOT see it coming.  Polls saw it failing. Everyone I read online were pro-Remain.  But the PROBLEM was, the people I was reading were the intelligent, highly educated people from urban areas.  I understood their viewpoint, and OF COURSE it would be dumb for the UK to leave the EU.

Then guess what?  They voted to leave.  If you look at the demographics of how the vote went, it was overwhelmingly the older generation who voted to leave.  Millennials overwhelmingly voted to stay.  It was the people with less education who voted to leave.  The people with more education voted to stay (as a rule).  It was the rural people who voted to leave.  The urban areas (e.g. London) voted to stay.

The people worried about immigration voted to leave--that was one of the main core issues/reasons for leaving.

And guess what? The older, less educated, rural, fearful/racist population outvoted the younger, more educated, urban population.  Brexit passed.

Now guess who is voting for Trump?  Old people.  Millennials mostly hate him.  Racist/fearful people wanting the wall/deporting Muslims.  People with less education.  People in rural areas.

We all tend to know the younger, more educated, urban people.  And we don't understand how anyone could like Trump.  But those people lost in the Brexit vote.  And it seems like they might lose in the Trump vote. That'll be one major explanation to remember on November 8.

I was shocked at the Brexit vote.  But prepare yourself for the Trump vote, because despite being across the pond, they're actually quite similar.

As I finished with there, I think Brexit and Trump have much more in common than you'd think.

[ender]

Or maybe we could just simply make it easier to work here legally? From an economic perspective, trying to enforce a closed border is working against the basic principles of the free market. It is akin to trying to stop the sharing of free mp3 files on the internet. The solution that worked wasn't to prevent people from sharing files, wasn't to enforce hefty fines. The solution that worked was to give people an inexpensive, legal alternative that was easy to use such that most people preferred using legal methods over illegal ones.

Consider for a moment you are a worker making $11/hour. You know that in your town there are lots of immigrants (whether legal or illegal, doesn't matter at this point).

Are you more likely to believe:

• Those immigrants are driving your wages down
• Those immigrants are driving your wages up

I think it's pretty obvious from this fairly simple hypothetical why the immigration factor matters to a lot of people.

[dramaman]

People are people.  If they need work and you pay them to do stuff, they're going to be around.  If you don't want them around, stop paying them to do stuff . . . and then deal with the consequences of losing that huge source of very cheap labor.

How long does that labor stay cheap once their status in this country is legitimized?  Once those illegally become legitimate, presumably we would be paying them normal American wages.  Since most of these workers are lower skilled, we have added millions of low skill workers for Americans to complete against.

We used to have Americans doing the work, and it was always that cheap.  It just never increased once Americans no longer wanted to do the work.  And even if we could pay them normal wages, the cost to our economy for the poor/middle class would be huge.

Gin - Illegal immigrants are doing a lot more than just farm work.  Construction, maids, hotels, restaurants.  Many of those classes have people in this country illegally doing the work competing against citizens and/or those here legally.  The result is wages are driven down for legal workers and/or automation is delayed. 

Rather than having all of these people working illegally for less than legal wages, let's stop the inflow, deport who needs deported (certainly not all), and come up with a plan that is good for our country.

Or maybe we could just simply make it easier to work here legally? From an economic perspective, trying to enforce a closed border is working against the basic principles of the free market. It is akin to trying to stop the sharing of free mp3 files on the internet. The solution that worked wasn't to prevent people from sharing files, wasn't to enforce hefty fines. The solution that worked was to give people an inexpensive, legal alternative that was easy to use such that most people preferred using legal methods over illegal ones.

Drama:

I agree that we should provide a legal opportunity for some to work here and enforce laws against employers.  The key is some. 

Trump wants to send them all back and the left won't even acknowledge some are here illegally.

When you have a society at the southern border with a serious crime problem and a corrupt govt, I think it makes sense to have some border security and know who enters our country.

It is kind of a pointless canard (not to mention patently false) to say that the left won't even acknowledge that some people are here illegally. There is disagreement over whether the term 'illegal' is a defacto slur or not. Yes people who cross the border secretly, who overstay their visa are breaking the law. Yes such acts are illegal. Yet there are lots of laws, lots of illegal acts, yet why do we single out this ONE group of people to emphasize more than anything else that they are law breakers. When we say a 'drunk driver' are we refusing to acknowledge that driving under the influence is against the law because we don't prefix with 'illegal'? What about tax cheats, bookies, prostitutes, etc? By not using 'illegal' in their label, are we refusing to admit that what they do is illegal?

What IS the big deal about insisting that we use the word 'illegal' when talking about people who did not go through the proper immigration process? Is it refusing to admit there is a problem? If everyone on the left simply started using the term 'illegal immigration' do you think the problem would just go away?

Yes, we have people who are here illegally. That doesn't change whether you call them undocumented persons or illegal immigrants.

So what do we do about it? What CAN we do about it?

Going back to my mp3 example. Where do you think we'd be with online music if the music companies would have refused to open up their music catalogs to sell and steam their music if they had insisted that first we had to use the term 'illegal music' and that we had to address the 'illegal music' that was already on peoples' computers and that internet companies had to place controls on their systems to prevent 'illegal music' from being shared. I think there would be no itunes, no pandora, nothing legal except for a few music industry companies with websites offering pricey, extremely restricted music albums that few people purchased because it was much easier to download it for free.

[dramaman]

Or maybe we could just simply make it easier to work here legally? From an economic perspective, trying to enforce a closed border is working against the basic principles of the free market. It is akin to trying to stop the sharing of free mp3 files on the internet. The solution that worked wasn't to prevent people from sharing files, wasn't to enforce hefty fines. The solution that worked was to give people an inexpensive, legal alternative that was easy to use such that most people preferred using legal methods over illegal ones.

Consider for a moment you are a worker making $11/hour. You know that in your town there are lots of immigrants (whether legal or illegal, doesn't matter at this point).

Are you more likely to believe:

• Those immigrants are driving your wages down
• Those immigrants are driving your wages up

I think it's pretty obvious from this fairly simple hypothetical why the immigration factor matters to a lot of people.

I don't disagree with that assessment.

How people feel doesn't change the principles of the free market. People in the music industry were also rightly concerned about the impact of music file sharing and how they could continue to demand a high price for a CD when people could get individual songs for free. They tried to fight it but in the end it was futile. They had to accept that the way people purchased and consumed music had changed forever.

[Christiana]

Trump has also drawn in a large number of frustrated Tea Party supporters, who have been taught (by both parties) in the last few years that playing by the rules and asking nicely will get them nowhere. Supporting Trump sends a big F YOU to both Democrats and the Republican Party establishment.

[Midwest]

It is kind of a pointless canard (not to mention patently false) to say that the left won't even acknowledge that some people are here illegally. There is disagreement over whether the term 'illegal' is a defacto slur or not. Yes people who cross the border secretly, who overstay their visa are breaking the law. Yes such acts are illegal. Yet there are lots of laws, lots of illegal acts, yet why do we single out this ONE group of people to emphasize more than anything else that they are law breakers. When we say a 'drunk driver' are we refusing to acknowledge that driving under the influence is against the law because we don't prefix with 'illegal'? What about tax cheats, bookies, prostitutes, etc? By not using 'illegal' in their label, are we refusing to admit that what they do is illegal?

The term immigrant is generally a positive term in this country.  Drunks, bookies, tax cheats, and prostitutes have none of those positive feelings.  You don't need to say illegal prostitute, because prostitutes (even where it's legal), are typically looked down upon.

The term "undocumented" makes it sound like those in our country illegally forgot to file a piece of paper. 

Our nation is one of immigrants.  However, having laws about who can or will immigrate is part of most societies. 

With regard to the left, they seem to be blurring the line between legal immigrants and those in our country illegally.  There were undocumented or illegal immigrants at the convention and if you don't support open borders you are anti-immigrant.  That is simply untrue. 

[Jack]

It is kind of a pointless canard (not to mention patently false) to say that the left won't even acknowledge that some people are here illegally. There is disagreement over whether the term 'illegal' is a defacto slur or not. Yes people who cross the border secretly, who overstay their visa are breaking the law. Yes such acts are illegal. Yet there are lots of laws, lots of illegal acts, yet why do we single out this ONE group of people to emphasize more than anything else that they are law breakers. When we say a 'drunk driver' are we refusing to acknowledge that driving under the influence is against the law because we don't prefix with 'illegal'? What about tax cheats, bookies, prostitutes, etc? By not using 'illegal' in their label, are we refusing to admit that what they do is illegal?

For drunk drivers, tax cheats, etc. their crime is a specific act. They commit it and then go do something else. Maybe they commit the illegal act many times and frequently, but they're not doing it 24/7/365.

In contrast, an illegal immigrant is in the process of committing his offense from the moment he crosses onto US territory without a valid visa (or the moment his valid visa expires) until the moment he leaves US territory or acquires legal status. If you meet an illegal immigrant, he is committing his crime right then as you talk to him. His crime is 24/7/365.

For that reason, the characterization of "being" illegal as opposed to "doing" an illegal thing fits much better for illegal immigration than it does for your other crime examples.

Going back to my mp3 example. Where do you think we'd be with online music if the music companies would have refused to open up their music catalogs to sell and steam their music if they had insisted that first we had to use the term 'illegal music' and that we had to address the 'illegal music' that was already on peoples' computers and that internet companies had to place controls on their systems to prevent 'illegal music' from being shared. I think there would be no itunes, no pandora, nothing legal except for a few music industry companies with websites offering pricey, extremely restricted music albums that few people purchased because it was much easier to download it for free.

That's exactly what the RIAA et al. did try to do (and which the BSA and MPAA are still trying to do -- that's why as of yesterday, Microsoft is no longer allowing un-signed drivers on Windows 10, to enforce their DRM). iTunes was only able to exist (and succeed in winning permission to distribute music DRM-free) because of Apple's massive domination of the music player industry, and Pandora is still being slowly choked to death by ever-increasing royalty demands.

The point is, I see where you're going with your argument that we need to re-frame the debate -- and I wholeheartedly agree, especially on the topic of the copyright cartels stealing from the public domain and destroying your right to control your own property -- but we certainly haven't succeeded yet with copyright and I think there's even less of a chance with immigration.

Also, it's a whole lot less impossible to restrict the movement of people than it is to restrict the duplication of bytes.

[arebelspy]

Saw this thought experiment on a clifp's Facebook page.. If you're a Democrat, picture this:

Imagine it's 2008,and the Republican have nominated Dick Cheney for Presidency. Much to many people's amazement the Democrats have nominated Donald Trump*.

*Before you say it's ludicrous, remember that he was registered Democrat for large parts of his life, and his positions obviously would have shifted depending on who he was catering to.. plus Trump's position on Trade, universal health care, foreign wars, and Wall St, the rigged system are all already much closer to Bernie Sanders's than traditional Republican views.  But ignore the plausibility either way for this thought experiment, no need to argue about this part.

Most Democrats leaders have tepidly endorsed him. "Trump isn't perfect but he's better than evil Dick Cheney." How many of you Democrats would vote for evil Cheney over Trump there? That's pretty much how most Republicans are feeling now when thinking about voting for evil Hillary over Trump. 

[jrhampt]

Saw this thought experiment on a clifp's Facebook page.. If you're a Democrat, picture this:

Imagine it's 2008,and the Republican have nominated Dick Cheney for Presidency. Much to many people's amazement the Democrats have nominated Donald Trump*.

*Before you say it's ludicrous, remember that he was registered Democrat for large parts of his life, and his positions obviously would have shifted depending on who he was catering to.. plus Trump's position on Trade, universal health care, foreign wars, and Wall St, the rigged system are all already much closer to Bernie Sanders's than traditional Republican views.  But ignore the plausibility either way for this thought experiment, no need to argue about this part.

Most Democrats leaders have tepidly endorsed him. "Trump isn't perfect but he's better than evil Dick Cheney." How many of you Democrats would vote for evil Cheney over Trump there? That's pretty much how most Republicans are feeling now when thinking about voting for evil Hillary over Trump.

This is an interesting perspective and a valid question.  I hope that I would still vote for the candidate with experience and at least some gravitas and a modicum of decency over the reality TV star/beauty pageant/strip club owner with multiple bankruptcies.

[dramaman]

Saw this thought experiment on a clifp's Facebook page.. If you're a Democrat, picture this:

Imagine it's 2008,and the Republican have nominated Dick Cheney for Presidency. Much to many people's amazement the Democrats have nominated Donald Trump*.

*Before you say it's ludicrous, remember that he was registered Democrat for large parts of his life, and his positions obviously would have shifted depending on who he was catering to.. plus Trump's position on Trade, universal health care, foreign wars, and Wall St, the rigged system are all already much closer to Bernie Sanders's than traditional Republican views.  But ignore the plausibility either way for this thought experiment, no need to argue about this part.

Most Democrats leaders have tepidly endorsed him. "Trump isn't perfect but he's better than evil Dick Cheney." How many of you Democrats would vote for evil Cheney over Trump there? That's pretty much how most Republicans are feeling now when thinking about voting for evil Hillary over Trump.

This is an interesting perspective and a valid question.  I hope that I would still vote for the candidate with experience and at least some gravitas and a modicum of decency over the reality TV star/beauty pageant/strip club owner with multiple bankruptcies.

I don't doubt that a number of liberals would make that kind of deal with the devil. That doesn't mean it isn't a deal with the devil.

[arebelspy]

I don't doubt that a number of liberals would make that kind of deal with the devil. That doesn't mean it isn't a deal with the devil.

Of course.  And they'd probably even admit that, as I'd bet many Republicans who are going to hold their nose and vote for Trump.

[dramaman]

It is kind of a pointless canard (not to mention patently false) to say that the left won't even acknowledge that some people are here illegally. There is disagreement over whether the term 'illegal' is a defacto slur or not. Yes people who cross the border secretly, who overstay their visa are breaking the law. Yes such acts are illegal. Yet there are lots of laws, lots of illegal acts, yet why do we single out this ONE group of people to emphasize more than anything else that they are law breakers. When we say a 'drunk driver' are we refusing to acknowledge that driving under the influence is against the law because we don't prefix with 'illegal'? What about tax cheats, bookies, prostitutes, etc? By not using 'illegal' in their label, are we refusing to admit that what they do is illegal?

For drunk drivers, tax cheats, etc. their crime is a specific act. They commit it and then go do something else. Maybe they commit the illegal act many times and frequently, but they're not doing it 24/7/365.

In contrast, an illegal immigrant is in the process of committing his offense from the moment he crosses onto US territory without a valid visa (or the moment his valid visa expires) until the moment he leaves US territory or acquires legal status. If you meet an illegal immigrant, he is committing his crime right then as you talk to him. His crime is 24/7/365.

For that reason, the characterization of "being" illegal as opposed to "doing" an illegal thing fits much better for illegal immigration than it does for your other crime examples.

I think your interpretation on being vs doing is a bit simplistic. Even so, a tax cheat is an illegal as long as the money he stole from the government remains unpaid. A person with a broken taillight is an illegal until he gets it fixed. A bank robber is an illegal as long as he is at large. In none of these cases do we feel it necessary to tack on the term illegal. So why do it for people who are in the country without proper documentation and permission?

What is wrong with Undocumented Person? After all the crimes that have been committed are NOT even felonies as far as I understand. Is it because such a bland label doesn't engender as much emotional appeal as Illegal Immigrant?

[Midwest]

I don't doubt that a number of liberals would make that kind of deal with the devil. That doesn't mean it isn't a deal with the devil.

Of course.  And they'd probably even admit that, as I'd bet many Republicans who are going to hold their nose and vote for Trump.

The nice thing about Clinton or Trump is the republican congress will be a check on either.  If Hillary were to get into office and get a democratic congress, that could be bad.  If congress were willing to work with Trump, I'd be concerned about a Republican congress with him. 

[iris lily]

I don't doubt that a number of liberals would make that kind of deal with the devil. That doesn't mean it isn't a deal with the devil.

Of course.  And they'd probably even admit that, as I'd bet many Republicans who are going to hold their nose and vote for Trump.

The nice thing about Clinton or Trump is the republican congress will be a check on either.  If Hillary were to get into office and get a democratic congress, that could be bad.  If congress were willing to work with Trump, I'd be concerned about a Republican congress with him.

Actually, that is what I am hoping happens. HRC and another Republican
Congress.

Me likee gridlock because I am not terrifically unhappy with the status quo, and I dont think the occupant of the White House is gonna solve the things I am unhappy about, anyway.

[Jack]

I think your interpretation on being vs doing is a bit simplistic. Even so, a tax cheat is an illegal as long as the money he stole from the government remains unpaid.

No, a tax cheat is only committing crimes on the day he files his returns. If you file false returns in 2013, 2014, and 2015 you get charged with three counts*, not 3 * 365 counts (one per day) or 3* 365 * 24 * 60 * 60 counts (one per second).

A person with a broken taillight is an illegal until he gets it fixed.

That's a better example, but even then the person is only continuing to offend while he is driving.

What is wrong with Undocumented Person?

Because, like somebody else pointed out, it sounds like a mere clerical error, which is inaccurate. Illegal immigrants are not merely undocumented, they were refused documentation and came over anyway.

(* or it might be 3 times the number of errors, or number of documents filed or something. Not being a tax cheat, I don't know. The point is, you don't get charged continuously just because you didn't get caught immediately.)

[Jack]

Saw this thought experiment on a clifp's Facebook page.. If you're a Democrat, picture this:

Imagine it's 2008,and the Republican have nominated Dick Cheney for Presidency. Much to many people's amazement the Democrats have nominated Donald Trump*.

*Before you say it's ludicrous, remember that he was registered Democrat for large parts of his life, and his positions obviously would have shifted depending on who he was catering to.. plus Trump's position on Trade, universal health care, foreign wars, and Wall St, the rigged system are all already much closer to Bernie Sanders's than traditional Republican views.  But ignore the plausibility either way for this thought experiment, no need to argue about this part.

Most Democrats leaders have tepidly endorsed him. "Trump isn't perfect but he's better than evil Dick Cheney." How many of you Democrats would vote for evil Cheney over Trump there? That's pretty much how most Republicans are feeling now when thinking about voting for evil Hillary over Trump.

This is an interesting perspective and a valid question.  I hope that I would still vote for the candidate with experience and at least some gravitas and a modicum of decency over the reality TV star/beauty pageant/strip club owner with multiple bankruptcies.

I don't doubt that a number of liberals would make that kind of deal with the devil. That doesn't mean it isn't a deal with the devil.

My policy is similar to Batman's (from Batman Begins): "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."

In either case -- Trump vs. Clinton or Trump vs. Cheney -- I'd prefer to vote third-party. At least, that's my idealist position here in August.  If Georgia is a swing state in November, it remains to be seen whether I can uphold that ideal.

[Midwest]

A person with a broken taillight is an illegal until he gets it fixed. A bank robber is an illegal as long as he is at large. In none of these cases do we feel it necessary to tack on the term illegal. So why do it for people who are in the country without proper documentation and permission?

What is wrong with Undocumented Person? After all the crimes that have been committed are NOT even felonies as far as I understand. Is it because such a bland label doesn't engender as much emotional appeal as Illegal Immigrant?

Bank robber has a negative connotation.  A person with a broken tail light is a traffic offender not an un-repaired taillight driver.

People in this country illegally are not necessarily bad people, but they are breaking a law which impacts society more than a single broken tail light.

[Midwest]

I don't doubt that a number of liberals would make that kind of deal with the devil. That doesn't mean it isn't a deal with the devil.

Of course.  And they'd probably even admit that, as I'd bet many Republicans who are going to hold their nose and vote for Trump.

The nice thing about Clinton or Trump is the republican congress will be a check on either.  If Hillary were to get into office and get a democratic congress, that could be bad.  If congress were willing to work with Trump, I'd be concerned about a Republican congress with him.

Actually, that is what I am hoping happens. HRC and another Republican
Congress.

Me likee gridlock because I am not terrifically unhappy with the status quo, and I dont think the occupant of the White House is gonna solve the things I am unhappy about, anyway.

I like gridlock too.  Clinton's best years were with republican congress, Bush's worst with a republican congress and Obama's worst with a democratic congress.

Can't stand Hillary and don't want her nominating supreme court.  I won't vote for her.  Other than that, not sure.

[a plan comes together]

Welp, looks like we have the first legitimate elected Republican to come out and say they are voting Clinton. Won't be the last. Wonder how many will cut their losses and jump ship: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party-richard-hanna.html

[Northwestie]

Oh, I think the Donald is going to auger right into the ground on this one.  Wait until the debates - shoot, in an interview he didn't seem to know that Crimea had been invaded by Russia, couldn't figure out the difference between the Kurds and the Cuds Forces, nor does he understand the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah.  These are items any 16 year old who occasionally watches the news or reads a paper will know.

Why do you think the people voting for him care about any of these things?  None of that matters in this election.

I have a shred of faith in the American voter that, yes, it does matter and they will send this clown packing.

[Jack]

Welp, looks like we have the first legitimate elected Republican to come out and say they are voting Clinton. Won't be the last. Wonder how many will cut their losses and jump ship: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party-richard-hanna.html

I have to say, I'm surprised there hasn't been a massive exodus to the Libertarian Party (or at least to endorse Johnson instead of Trump) yet. You'd think Republicans would be smart enough to realize that if they did it en masse it would be effective, and organized enough to pull it off. I guess that party discipline might be made harder when the order is to defect from your party, but still...!

[Cassie]

I think many people will not vote a party line but will use their brains to vote.  Although, I often vote democrat I do not always do that. I look at the person, issues, etc.  Anyone with half a brain would have voted for Cheney over Trump (democrat or not).  I am older  and do not know 1 person voting for Trump-even people that usually vote Republican.

[ender]

I think many people will not vote a party line but will use their brains to vote.  Although, I often vote democrat I do not always do that. I look at the person, issues, etc.  Anyone with half a brain would have voted for Cheney over Trump (democrat or not).  I am older  and do not know 1 person voting for Trump-even people that usually vote Republican.

I always take this with a grain of salt.

It's easy for people to say that now.

But when November comes, and the choice people feel presented with is "Hillary or Trump" I can guarantee a large number of those "Republican but not sure about Trump" people will dutifully cast their votes for him.

[Northwestie]

Welp, looks like we have the first legitimate elected Republican to come out and say they are voting Clinton. Won't be the last. Wonder how many will cut their losses and jump ship: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party-richard-hanna.html

I have to say, I'm surprised there hasn't been a massive exodus to the Libertarian Party (or at least to endorse Johnson instead of Trump) yet. You'd think Republicans would be smart enough to realize that if they did it en masse it would be effective, and organized enough to pull it off. I guess that party discipline might be made harder when the order is to defect from your party, but still...!

The GOP line - well yes, he's an idiot, ego maniac, bully, racist, misogynist, mis- and ill-informed, and woefully unprepared.  But he's OUR guy.

[arebelspy]

Welp, looks like we have the first legitimate elected Republican to come out and say they are voting Clinton. Won't be the last. Wonder how many will cut their losses and jump ship: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party-richard-hanna.html

I have to say, I'm surprised there hasn't been a massive exodus to the Libertarian Party (or at least to endorse Johnson instead of Trump) yet. You'd think Republicans would be smart enough to realize that if they did it en masse it would be effective, and organized enough to pull it off. I guess that party discipline might be made harder when the order is to defect from your party, but still...!

They want it to remain two parties.  If they endorse the Libertarian candidate, and their voting bloc reads about him, what if they also vote lib the next election?  Keeping it to a two party thing is much more beneficial for them.

[arebelspy]

I think many people will not vote a party line but will use their brains to vote. 

I don't think it's party line that will get Trump votes.

It's liking him (and what he has to say), or hating Hillary.