The Donald Trump rally from Mobile, Alabama

[healthmyths]

What a diverse crowd, of white people...

Check out "Diamond and Silk...."

 

[healthmyths]

Well that is an exaggeration "all talk no plan" at least when it comes to "illegal immigration".
Which by the way is first and foremost NOW what Trump uses when ever asked about the "immigration" problem... he responds and correctly...
"illegal immigration"! Because like Trump I am all for "LEGAL IMMIGRATION"!
After all we ALL are from some other country in our ancestors! BUT legally! I have a daughter-in-law who is a "legal immigrant" and became a
NATURALIZED CITIZEN. One who, being born an alien, has lawfully become a citizen of the United States Under the constitution and laws.
She has all the rights of a natural born citizen, except that of being eligible as president or vice-president of the United States.

Here is the "illegal immigration" plan as created by Trump and endorsed by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globetrotting donors. We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own. That must change. Here are the three core principles of real immigration reform:

1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.

2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.

3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.

Now there is more details from this web site: Immigration Reform

Sorry, I should have been more clear. By "plan", I mean a plan to pay for all of the things he is promising. How will he pay to make our mitary great and feared? How will he pay for the wall? How will he get Mexico to pay for the wall, how will he pay to deport so many people.

He says the right things but has to plan to pay for it.

I showed you ONE plan for immigration!
Did you read the simple web page?

What was "Obama's " plan at this time? Did YOU know this was what Obama told everyone THAT read his book that THIS WAS HIS PLAN???
from his book... "Dreams from My Father"...published July 18,1995!
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed.
Such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

Obama's plan was to "FOOL" people! Play the race card. Obama was actually the FIRST person to play the race card when he said..
"They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced
and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"
Obama says Republicans will use race to stoke fear


So please at this early early stage don't bitch and moan about "plans"... The biggest most effective executive actions by Trump is
A) UPHOLD current laws... NO new ones needed!
B) Do away with this idiocy in the military...
In the past it was the superiority of US military that was the major reason for our security...
but with our military having less then 14% approval of Obama, with Obama's rules of engagement stating:
“Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,” the laminated card reads.
For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests. “Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...#ixzz0raavCuPp
C) STOP the insane attack on healthcare by eliminating the biggest LIE Obama told... that later he admitted was a lie!
Remember when Obama said: "I prefer single payer health system"... he WANTED then 1,400 insurance companies to close, 400,000 people to be unemployed and OVER $100 billion a year in Federal/state/local and property taxes to disappear!
Is that the kind of President we want? One who wants Americans to lose money, lose their jobs, lose their businesses?

All Trump need do is what he stated " Make America Great Again!
Stop blaming Americans for all the world's woes!
Start remembering how many trillions of dollars Americans have given, hundreds of thousands of lives to help our fellow man!
Stop blaming American as Obama has done!

I don't know if you just are not reading my posts at all or what.

Where is the plan to pay for this stuff? You keep showing me plans of what he wants to do but none of them show how he plans to pay for this stuff. Unless you can point out where I missed it because I don't see it anywhere.

Yepp. Where is the plan to pay for this stuff??

Alone, the costs for a wall 1,954 miles in length on the southern border to Mexico will go into the hundreds of billions of dollars, including construction, personnel and upkeep. That is a very realistic figure. 200 billion is probably a conservative estimate. 600 Miles of fence had a cost of 8 Billion, just for the construction, and a fence is infinitely cheaper to build than a real wall, with watchposts and customs booths and floodlights and motion sensors and all that jazz. In fact, a conservative estimate is that a wall would be about 7 times more expensive than a fence, including the costs of removing the fence that is there and digging a deep enough foundation to keep tunnels from happening. 8 * 7 = 56 BILLION per 600 miles. 56 billion * 3.26 (which would bring us to 1,954 miles) = 182.56 BILLION for an almost 2,000 mile wall. Consider how much the walls in your own house cost, how small that is in relation to just one mile, that the wall is going to need to be far thicker, far, far higher and more weather resistant than your average house wall, and you can see that the costs shoot to heaven pretty damned fast. It's simple math, you know.

For each illegal immigrant who is found and then will be expatriated, the estimate is at 11 thousand per head to find and expel. 11,000 * 12,000,000 = 132 billion. This number does not reflect the massive hit that the housing market and the secret inland economy will take when those 12 million are gone.

So, already, we are easily at almost 315 BILLION.

And then there are the legal costs for attempting to expel children of illegal immigrants, since per 14th amendment, they are US citizens and cannot legally be expelled, especially since they have no other land of origin. To put it simply, there is no other land to repatriate them to. Who knows how many such children are here. But I estimate that the tort costs alone would be between 40-70 billion, over many, many years.

So, now we are at about 360 BILLION.

And then there will be the costs for attempting to alter the 14th amendment per introduction of a new amendment, because, contrary to Trump's fantasies, the only way to undo a constitutional amendment is with a new amendment, where the wording makes part or all of a previous amendment null and void. This will require two things to happen, and the order doesn't really matter:

Constitutional Amendment Process

The process for amending any part of the Constitution has usually taken a number of years to do. This is not a short-term project. And such an amendment cannot retroactively remove the citizenship of children already born to illegal immigrants here in the USA. For good or for bad, those children are fellow citizens. Many of them only speak English and cannot speak the language or their ancestors. Many have never travelled to the homeland of their parents, who are likely hiding in the shadows, anyway. So, in terms of trying to amend part of the 14th amendment, we are talking about a long process. Were a President "Trump" to decide to go around the 14th amendment, I suspect he would have a major fight on his hands.

As for costs, it's hard to say, but each state would have costs to bear for advertisement, discussion, referendum. Considering that any special election costs 2-5 million per state for an average sized state, far more for a state like California, alone the costs of a referendum nationwide would be around 150 MILLION. That is a small amount compared to what I've added together, but it's not far away from the foreign aid that we give to Mexico and according to Don Trump, Mexico will pay for a 183 BILLION dollar wall because they would be scared that we will take away their 500 MILLION per year. This is the moment where I start to laugh out loud...

And then there is the topic of the US Military, which, suddenly, in the eyes of the Right, is so unbelievably weak, in spite of having performed brilliantly in not just one, but two wars. So, without specifying what needs to be improved and how much of this, that and the other is necessary to improve the US Military, there is no way to put an honest price-tag on it. But I have never seen a major change in the US Military that didn't have a price-tag less than many billions of Dollars. I suspect that Trump is talking about changes around the 300-400 BILLION mark.

Put this all together and I bet (and would be willing to eat my hat with this projection) we are, when all is said and done, talking about 700 BILLION dollars or so, just this side of 1 TRILLION dollars.

And you are right: Trump has not said how he will pay for this. Anyone who thinks that Mexico is going to fork over 183 BILLION for a wall on our side of the border is taking LSD or something like that.

Like I said, it's simple math.

I have little doubt that he could get Mexico to pay for at least part of it. I just haven't heard it from him yet. Even if we spent all of that money it would be a rare case where the government didn't waste taxpayer dollars.

According to our research engine:
The U.S. Government gave a total of $209,432,920 to Mexico in 2012:

The aid was broken down in the following manner:
Economic

• Child Survival and Health: $-12,200

• Department of Defense Security Assistance: $39,854

• Development Assistance: $17,948,047

• Economic Support Fund/Security Support Assistance: $40,810,450

• Global Health and Child Survival: $3,894,197

• Narcotics Control: $27,565,779

• Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related: $7,074,531

• Other Active Grant Programs: $15,381,152

• Other State Assistance: $2,700,596

• Other USAID Assistance: $2,764

• Other USDA Assistance: $372,914

• Peace Corps: $2,000,836

• Military Assistance, Total: $91,654,000

Stop spending $200 million to Mexico is a start!
http://us-foreign-aid.insidegov.com/q/112/1590/How-much-money-does-the-U-S-give-to-Mexico

 

[peach174]

"[T]there is a distinct nativist element in this that is finding resonance with racist whites, I have no doubt about this at all."

Agreed.

Trump is appealing to the unwarranted fear of change, diversity, and inclusion common to most on the right.

No too many people on all sides are saying the nation is going in the wrong direction.
Right Direction or Wrong Track - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well that is an exaggeration "all talk no plan" at least when it comes to "illegal immigration".
Which by the way is first and foremost NOW what Trump uses when ever asked about the "immigration" problem... he responds and correctly...
"illegal immigration"! Because like Trump I am all for "LEGAL IMMIGRATION"!
After all we ALL are from some other country in our ancestors! BUT legally! I have a daughter-in-law who is a "legal immigrant" and became a
NATURALIZED CITIZEN. One who, being born an alien, has lawfully become a citizen of the United States Under the constitution and laws.
She has all the rights of a natural born citizen, except that of being eligible as president or vice-president of the United States.

Here is the "illegal immigration" plan as created by Trump and endorsed by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globetrotting donors. We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own. That must change. Here are the three core principles of real immigration reform:

1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.

2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.

3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.

Now there is more details from this web site: Immigration Reform

Sorry, I should have been more clear. By "plan", I mean a plan to pay for all of the things he is promising. How will he pay to make our mitary great and feared? How will he pay for the wall? How will he get Mexico to pay for the wall, how will he pay to deport so many people.

He says the right things but has to plan to pay for it.

I showed you ONE plan for immigration!
Did you read the simple web page?

What was "Obama's " plan at this time? Did YOU know this was what Obama told everyone THAT read his book that THIS WAS HIS PLAN???
from his book... "Dreams from My Father"...published July 18,1995!
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed.
Such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

Obama's plan was to "FOOL" people! Play the race card. Obama was actually the FIRST person to play the race card when he said..
"They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced
and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"
Obama says Republicans will use race to stoke fear


So please at this early early stage don't bitch and moan about "plans"... The biggest most effective executive actions by Trump is
A) UPHOLD current laws... NO new ones needed!
B) Do away with this idiocy in the military...
In the past it was the superiority of US military that was the major reason for our security...
but with our military having less then 14% approval of Obama, with Obama's rules of engagement stating:
“Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,” the laminated card reads.
For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests. “Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...#ixzz0raavCuPp
C) STOP the insane attack on healthcare by eliminating the biggest LIE Obama told... that later he admitted was a lie!
Remember when Obama said: "I prefer single payer health system"... he WANTED then 1,400 insurance companies to close, 400,000 people to be unemployed and OVER $100 billion a year in Federal/state/local and property taxes to disappear!
Is that the kind of President we want? One who wants Americans to lose money, lose their jobs, lose their businesses?

All Trump need do is what he stated " Make America Great Again!
Stop blaming Americans for all the world's woes!
Start remembering how many trillions of dollars Americans have given, hundreds of thousands of lives to help our fellow man!
Stop blaming American as Obama has done!

I don't know if you just are not reading my posts at all or what.

Where is the plan to pay for this stuff? You keep showing me plans of what he wants to do but none of them show how he plans to pay for this stuff. Unless you can point out where I missed it because I don't see it anywhere.

Yepp. Where is the plan to pay for this stuff??

Alone, the costs for a wall 1,954 miles in length on the southern border to Mexico will go into the hundreds of billions of dollars, including construction, personnel and upkeep. That is a very realistic figure. 200 billion is probably a conservative estimate. 600 Miles of fence had a cost of 8 Billion, just for the construction, and a fence is infinitely cheaper to build than a real wall, with watchposts and customs booths and floodlights and motion sensors and all that jazz. In fact, a conservative estimate is that a wall would be about 7 times more expensive than a fence, including the costs of removing the fence that is there and digging a deep enough foundation to keep tunnels from happening. 8 * 7 = 56 BILLION per 600 miles. 56 billion * 3.26 (which would bring us to 1,954 miles) = 182.56 BILLION for an almost 2,000 mile wall. Consider how much the walls in your own house cost, how small that is in relation to just one mile, that the wall is going to need to be far thicker, far, far higher and more weather resistant than your average house wall, and you can see that the costs shoot to heaven pretty damned fast. It's simple math, you know.

For each illegal immigrant who is found and then will be expatriated, the estimate is at 11 thousand per head to find and expel. 11,000 * 12,000,000 = 132 billion. This number does not reflect the massive hit that the housing market and the secret inland economy will take when those 12 million are gone.

So, already, we are easily at almost 315 BILLION.

And then there are the legal costs for attempting to expel children of illegal immigrants, since per 14th amendment, they are US citizens and cannot legally be expelled, especially since they have no other land of origin. To put it simply, there is no other land to repatriate them to. Who knows how many such children are here. But I estimate that the tort costs alone would be between 40-70 billion, over many, many years.

So, now we are at about 360 BILLION.

And then there will be the costs for attempting to alter the 14th amendment per introduction of a new amendment, because, contrary to Trump's fantasies, the only way to undo a constitutional amendment is with a new amendment, where the wording makes part or all of a previous amendment null and void. This will require two things to happen, and the order doesn't really matter:

Constitutional Amendment Process

The process for amending any part of the Constitution has usually taken a number of years to do. This is not a short-term project. And such an amendment cannot retroactively remove the citizenship of children already born to illegal immigrants here in the USA. For good or for bad, those children are fellow citizens. Many of them only speak English and cannot speak the language or their ancestors. Many have never travelled to the homeland of their parents, who are likely hiding in the shadows, anyway. So, in terms of trying to amend part of the 14th amendment, we are talking about a long process. Were a President "Trump" to decide to go around the 14th amendment, I suspect he would have a major fight on his hands.

As for costs, it's hard to say, but each state would have costs to bear for advertisement, discussion, referendum. Considering that any special election costs 2-5 million per state for an average sized state, far more for a state like California, alone the costs of a referendum nationwide would be around 150 MILLION. That is a small amount compared to what I've added together, but it's not far away from the foreign aid that we give to Mexico and according to Don Trump, Mexico will pay for a 183 BILLION dollar wall because they would be scared that we will take away their 500 MILLION per year. This is the moment where I start to laugh out loud...

And then there is the topic of the US Military, which, suddenly, in the eyes of the Right, is so unbelievably weak, in spite of having performed brilliantly in not just one, but two wars. So, without specifying what needs to be improved and how much of this, that and the other is necessary to improve the US Military, there is no way to put an honest price-tag on it. But I have never seen a major change in the US Military that didn't have a price-tag less than many billions of Dollars. I suspect that Trump is talking about changes around the 300-400 BILLION mark.

Put this all together and I bet (and would be willing to eat my hat with this projection) we are, when all is said and done, talking about 700 BILLION dollars or so, just this side of 1 TRILLION dollars.

And you are right: Trump has not said how he will pay for this. Anyone who thinks that Mexico is going to fork over 183 BILLION for a wall on our side of the border is taking LSD or something like that.

Like I said, it's simple math.

I have little doubt that he could get Mexico to pay for at least part of it. I just haven't heard it from him yet. Even if we spent all of that money it would be a rare case where the government didn't waste taxpayer dollars.

Let's see: $500,000,000 in US aid to Mexico, which they would lose if they don't pay $200,000,000,000 for a wall.

Now, which one of those figures has LESS zeros? You do the math.

Trump's nativist diatribe about Mexico, as if Mexico is suddenly our enemy, may make some very emotionally immature people feel better, but I guarantee you, Mexico is not going to pay for a wall that would be built on our side of the border. 500 million is peanuts in comparison to 200 Billion.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Trump also said something else off the cuff about Japan that was most disturbing and tells me how poorly educated he is.

Trump said that he was upset because in our military accords with Japan, were Japan to be attacked, we would come to their defense, but were the positions reversed, they would not come to ours.

Well, he lied.

And here is the evidence that he lied:

US, Japan Strike New Military Agreement

Japan will be able to defend regional allies that come under attack, a change that means Japanese missile defense systems could be used to intercept any weapons launched toward the United States — notable, given its close proximity to North Korea, which the official later described as a "growing threat" to regional stability.

In addition, expect to see increased Japanese presence around the globe on peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, and potentially also on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance operations.

The guidelines will also lead to the establishment of a standing "alliance coordination mechanism," made up of Japanese and US officials from the defense and foreign relations sides. That body will provide a streamlined way of organizing and controlling US-Japan operations, something that has hindered the military relationship in the past.

In the past, according to the 1951 military treaty with Japan, it was not allowed to use any part of its military except for purely defensive purposes and only on Japanese soil.

Do you know why? Because we, the allies, after such a brutal war, WWII, decided to strip Japan of the ability to ever have a large offensive force ever again.

Now, the new deal just happened in April at the behest of Pres. Obama. Another feather in his cap.

You would think that a guy like Trump, who claims to be so smart, would know a detail as important as this one.

So, just to be crystal clear, when Trump said that about Japan, he just lied.

He. Lied.


rightwinger

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What a diverse crowd, of white people...

Check out "Diamond and Silk...."

Always a few house ******* around...

 

[Carla_Danger]

First, here's the complete video, courtesy of WAPO:



It is in HD format, so the picture quality is better. The thing actually starts at about 1 hour and 48 minutes into the video and Trump's entrance and speech are at at roughly 2 hours and 22 minutes.

Now, there are varying opinions about how the rally went, but one thing is for sure: it was very, very well attended. The Trump people estimate that about 30,000 were there, that the stadium was about 3/4 full, which the video maybe confirms. And local TV is confirming this. Other news outlets say it was closer to 21,000. I suspect that, as with most things in life, the truth lies somewhere in the middle: probably closer to 25,000 and surely some more people poured in once he was there and speaking. This is not unusual.

The rally got lots of media coverage:

Trump draws huge crowd for speech at Alabama stadium

30,000 turn out for Donald Trump's Alabama pep rally - CNNPolitics.com

Trump addresses largest crowd of presidential campaign yet while in Alabama

Donald Trump tells thousands in Alabama: We'll make US better than ever

Both FOX and MSNBC claim that the actual attendance at the free rally, which Trump paid for, was about 1/2 of the 43,000 seats at the football stadium, which would be closer to 21,000-22,000.

Trump on Alabama Rally: It’s a 'Real Happening' - Breitbart


Others are a bit more more critical:

Trump’s audacious Southern spectacle is part of his strategy

Donald Trump, Alabama and the ghost of George Wallace


This critique is from a very left-leaning source, but even the pictures in it are worth a gander:

The Absolute Insanity Of Donald Trump’s Big Alabama Pep Rally, In 17 Tweets

Just for fun, since I had to stay up late anyway last night (family stuff), I watched the rally. Now, everyone is entitled to his opinion and so I am going to give mine.

1.) For what Trump wanted to achieve, he had a big success. I am talking strategema, here:

-he went to arguably the reddest state in the deep south (Alabama is roughly an R +25 state in presidential elections, far redder than Mississippi, Georgia or Florida, just a little redder than Tennessee at current) and was able to fill a football stadium with lots of people willing to see and hear him.

-he flew in with his own 757, buzzing the stadium, demonstrating his wealth. The crowd loved it.

-he gave, as usual, an impromptu speech, which the base will of course love, but impromptu can also mean "gotcha" slip up moments. These are the moments that the opposition loves to find and exploit.

-he used "I" an awful lot. The speech was much more about him than about America.

2.) As I watched the video, and the scenes before, I notice that the crowd was very, very, very, VERY white. Occasionally, I saw a darker skinner person, but there is no doubt that the minority component at this rally was very, very sparse. And other people are noticing this as well.

3.) The one Politico link makes mention that Trump is re-awakening the spirit of George Wallace, an extreme racist Governor from Alabama who made a third party bid for the Presidency in the hotly contested 1968 election.

I quote from the Politico link:

It was immigration, not segregation, that brought some 20,000 southerners — far fewer than predicted — out for Donald Trump on Friday night, but the ghost of George Wallace loomed large.

Wallace, an avowed segregationist, was the last presidential candidate to win electoral votes as a third-party candidate. The threat of Trump doing so, propelled by a hardline immigration stance that many have condemned as racist, looms over the Republican Party now as it did over the Democratic Party then, even as the enthusiasm of his following, for once, fell far short of expectations.

Wallace carried five Southern states, and Trump, who is leading early national polls in the race for the Republican nomination, touted his leads in Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida and Texas.

Trump also panned birthright citizenship as a bad deal for the U.S., saying, “We’re the only place just about that’s stupid enough to do it.” Trump’s recently released immigration plan calls for ending birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants, which is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, according to the legal consensus, though Trump disputes that point.

There were also vestiges of Wallace’s Alabama, including on the sample editions of “The First Freedom” newspaper one man handed out to drivers as they entered the parking lot. The paper’s front page included a story about “black-on-white crime in South Carolina” and an editor’s note about German media’s silence about “the actual programs these peaceful ‘neo-nazis’ stand for.”

The vast majority of supporters where white: of over 1,000 people waiting to enter on the east of the Ladd Peebles Stadium at 5 p.m., eight were black.

A black pastor opened the rally with an invocation, asking, “What if we could replace hate with love?” He was followed by an all-black middle school student council that led the crowd in the Pledge of Allegiance.

So, yeah, there is a distinct nativist element in this that is finding resonance with racist whites, I have no doubt about this at all. On the other hand, a black minister was indeed invited for the invocation, which I found to be very good.

What Trump just did was to go to the very heart of the ideological base of the Deep South, to a state that a Democrat would not win in a GE even in a massive landslide year for the Ds, and say to his fellow GOP-contenders, 'look, I can win where the heart of our party is.' And Trump is from evil, very blue New York, you know....

So, while I personally strongly disagree with many things Trump is saying, I think he achieved his goal.

And if anyone thought that the loud noises Trump has been making about immigration are going to go away, I think this rally makes it clear that nativism is going to be the centerpiece of his campaign. He is forcing the other GOP candidates to take a stand for or against: a wall, removing all 11-12 million illegal aliens, eliminating part of the 14th amendment, etc. So, regardless of who the GOP nominee will eventually be, and indeed, it could end up being Trump, the Democrats will have all of this stuff on record and will be able to use it.

Now, before some of my Rightie friends scream here, please note that I am praising Trump. He is a shrewd businessman and also a good showman. He knows how to get stuff organized and he knows how to put on a show. And a 23,000 strong crowd in a football stadium on a hot summer night really is a good feat for him. He saw potential for a far larger crowd than initially expected and he exploited it. Good for him. I really do think that he achieved what he wanted to achieve within the GOP in terms of making one more step toward becoming the permanent front-runner for the nomination.

However, the real question, one that Conservatives all over the place must ask is: how is this going to resonate with the rest of America? Every politically savvy person here knows that in order to win a presidential election, you have to win the soft-middle that can go either way in any election. How is the soft-middle going to take all this stuff with time?

And I wonder how many Conservatives out there really think that Trump is a real Conservative. The actual concrete things that he proposes are, in reality, big-government solutions to problems. But wait, I thought that Conservatives were small-government, non-interventionist types...

By saying that he would levy a 35% tax on anything that Automaker Ford produces as long as it continues with plans to build an auto-plant in Mexico, he just suggested a very big-government, intrusive, interventionist solution to a problem, and one that Conservatives like to accuse Liberals of: taxing more to get stuff done.

And I know this is going to shock some, because he and I don't get along at all, but I notice that The Rabbi has come out strongly against Trump and is saying over and over that Trump is no Conservative. Strangely enough ( ) I find myself agreeing with The Rabbi on this. When you actually measure what Trump proposes to do, you will find lots of progressivism in some of his stuff. Also, on social issues, I think it's hard to call Trump a Conservative at all. But he's made big waves, he is clearly the front runner in national nomination polling and in most all state polling (Wisconsin being the exception, to the best of my knowledge) and he surely has tapped into a reservoir of anger that is out there. Only, if you take a long, hard look at his rally audiences, we are talking mostly about white anger here. The pictures do not lie.

At the same time, Clinton had a much smaller rally. Warning: do not equate rally size with electability. Mo Udall had huge rallies in 1971 and part of 1972. He didn't get nominated. There were huge events for Reagan in 1976. He didn't get nominated that time around. John Dean was getting huge crowds in late 2003. He didn't get nominated. Far more important, I think, is the actual content of the rallies themselves.

-Stat

We should build a big beautiful wall around that stadium!!!

 

[Carla_Danger]

First, here's the complete video, courtesy of WAPO:



It is in HD format, so the picture quality is better. The thing actually starts at about 1 hour and 48 minutes into the video and Trump's entrance and speech are at at roughly 2 hours and 22 minutes.

Now, there are varying opinions about how the rally went, but one thing is for sure: it was very, very well attended. The Trump people estimate that about 30,000 were there, that the stadium was about 3/4 full, which the video maybe confirms. And local TV is confirming this. Other news outlets say it was closer to 21,000. I suspect that, as with most things in life, the truth lies somewhere in the middle: probably closer to 25,000 and surely some more people poured in once he was there and speaking. This is not unusual.

The rally got lots of media coverage:

Trump draws huge crowd for speech at Alabama stadium

30,000 turn out for Donald Trump's Alabama pep rally - CNNPolitics.com

Trump addresses largest crowd of presidential campaign yet while in Alabama

Donald Trump tells thousands in Alabama: We'll make US better than ever

Both FOX and MSNBC claim that the actual attendance at the free rally, which Trump paid for, was about 1/2 of the 43,000 seats at the football stadium, which would be closer to 21,000-22,000.

Trump on Alabama Rally: It’s a 'Real Happening' - Breitbart


Others are a bit more more critical:

Trump’s audacious Southern spectacle is part of his strategy

Donald Trump, Alabama and the ghost of George Wallace


This critique is from a very left-leaning source, but even the pictures in it are worth a gander:

The Absolute Insanity Of Donald Trump’s Big Alabama Pep Rally, In 17 Tweets

Just for fun, since I had to stay up late anyway last night (family stuff), I watched the rally. Now, everyone is entitled to his opinion and so I am going to give mine.

1.) For what Trump wanted to achieve, he had a big success. I am talking strategema, here:

-he went to arguably the reddest state in the deep south (Alabama is roughly an R +25 state in presidential elections, far redder than Mississippi, Georgia or Florida, just a little redder than Tennessee at current) and was able to fill a football stadium with lots of people willing to see and hear him.

-he flew in with his own 757, buzzing the stadium, demonstrating his wealth. The crowd loved it.

-he gave, as usual, an impromptu speech, which the base will of course love, but impromptu can also mean "gotcha" slip up moments. These are the moments that the opposition loves to find and exploit.

-he used "I" an awful lot. The speech was much more about him than about America.

2.) As I watched the video, and the scenes before, I notice that the crowd was very, very, very, VERY white. Occasionally, I saw a darker skinner person, but there is no doubt that the minority component at this rally was very, very sparse. And other people are noticing this as well.

3.) The one Politico link makes mention that Trump is re-awakening the spirit of George Wallace, an extreme racist Governor from Alabama who made a third party bid for the Presidency in the hotly contested 1968 election.

I quote from the Politico link:

It was immigration, not segregation, that brought some 20,000 southerners — far fewer than predicted — out for Donald Trump on Friday night, but the ghost of George Wallace loomed large.

Wallace, an avowed segregationist, was the last presidential candidate to win electoral votes as a third-party candidate. The threat of Trump doing so, propelled by a hardline immigration stance that many have condemned as racist, looms over the Republican Party now as it did over the Democratic Party then, even as the enthusiasm of his following, for once, fell far short of expectations.

Wallace carried five Southern states, and Trump, who is leading early national polls in the race for the Republican nomination, touted his leads in Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida and Texas.

Trump also panned birthright citizenship as a bad deal for the U.S., saying, “We’re the only place just about that’s stupid enough to do it.” Trump’s recently released immigration plan calls for ending birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants, which is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, according to the legal consensus, though Trump disputes that point.

There were also vestiges of Wallace’s Alabama, including on the sample editions of “The First Freedom” newspaper one man handed out to drivers as they entered the parking lot. The paper’s front page included a story about “black-on-white crime in South Carolina” and an editor’s note about German media’s silence about “the actual programs these peaceful ‘neo-nazis’ stand for.”

The vast majority of supporters where white: of over 1,000 people waiting to enter on the east of the Ladd Peebles Stadium at 5 p.m., eight were black.

A black pastor opened the rally with an invocation, asking, “What if we could replace hate with love?” He was followed by an all-black middle school student council that led the crowd in the Pledge of Allegiance.

So, yeah, there is a distinct nativist element in this that is finding resonance with racist whites, I have no doubt about this at all. On the other hand, a black minister was indeed invited for the invocation, which I found to be very good.

What Trump just did was to go to the very heart of the ideological base of the Deep South, to a state that a Democrat would not win in a GE even in a massive landslide year for the Ds, and say to his fellow GOP-contenders, 'look, I can win where the heart of our party is.' And Trump is from evil, very blue New York, you know....

So, while I personally strongly disagree with many things Trump is saying, I think he achieved his goal.

And if anyone thought that the loud noises Trump has been making about immigration are going to go away, I think this rally makes it clear that nativism is going to be the centerpiece of his campaign. He is forcing the other GOP candidates to take a stand for or against: a wall, removing all 11-12 million illegal aliens, eliminating part of the 14th amendment, etc. So, regardless of who the GOP nominee will eventually be, and indeed, it could end up being Trump, the Democrats will have all of this stuff on record and will be able to use it.

Now, before some of my Rightie friends scream here, please note that I am praising Trump. He is a shrewd businessman and also a good showman. He knows how to get stuff organized and he knows how to put on a show. And a 23,000 strong crowd in a football stadium on a hot summer night really is a good feat for him. He saw potential for a far larger crowd than initially expected and he exploited it. Good for him. I really do think that he achieved what he wanted to achieve within the GOP in terms of making one more step toward becoming the permanent front-runner for the nomination.

However, the real question, one that Conservatives all over the place must ask is: how is this going to resonate with the rest of America? Every politically savvy person here knows that in order to win a presidential election, you have to win the soft-middle that can go either way in any election. How is the soft-middle going to take all this stuff with time?

And I wonder how many Conservatives out there really think that Trump is a real Conservative. The actual concrete things that he proposes are, in reality, big-government solutions to problems. But wait, I thought that Conservatives were small-government, non-interventionist types...

By saying that he would levy a 35% tax on anything that Automaker Ford produces as long as it continues with plans to build an auto-plant in Mexico, he just suggested a very big-government, intrusive, interventionist solution to a problem, and one that Conservatives like to accuse Liberals of: taxing more to get stuff done.

And I know this is going to shock some, because he and I don't get along at all, but I notice that The Rabbi has come out strongly against Trump and is saying over and over that Trump is no Conservative. Strangely enough ( ) I find myself agreeing with The Rabbi on this. When you actually measure what Trump proposes to do, you will find lots of progressivism in some of his stuff. Also, on social issues, I think it's hard to call Trump a Conservative at all. But he's made big waves, he is clearly the front runner in national nomination polling and in most all state polling (Wisconsin being the exception, to the best of my knowledge) and he surely has tapped into a reservoir of anger that is out there. Only, if you take a long, hard look at his rally audiences, we are talking mostly about white anger here. The pictures do not lie.

At the same time, Clinton had a much smaller rally. Warning: do not equate rally size with electability. Mo Udall had huge rallies in 1971 and part of 1972. He didn't get nominated. There were huge events for Reagan in 1976. He didn't get nominated that time around. John Dean was getting huge crowds in late 2003. He didn't get nominated. Far more important, I think, is the actual content of the rallies themselves.

-Stat

I'm at 1 hour and 52 minutes, and still just seeing a bunch of fat people. The circus begins at 1 hr 53 minutes, just so you know.

 

[healthmyths]

First, here's the complete video, courtesy of WAPO:



It is in HD format, so the picture quality is better. The thing actually starts at about 1 hour and 48 minutes into the video and Trump's entrance and speech are at at roughly 2 hours and 22 minutes.

Now, there are varying opinions about how the rally went, but one thing is for sure: it was very, very well attended. The Trump people estimate that about 30,000 were there, that the stadium was about 3/4 full, which the video maybe confirms. And local TV is confirming this. Other news outlets say it was closer to 21,000. I suspect that, as with most things in life, the truth lies somewhere in the middle: probably closer to 25,000 and surely some more people poured in once he was there and speaking. This is not unusual.

The rally got lots of media coverage:

Trump draws huge crowd for speech at Alabama stadium

30,000 turn out for Donald Trump's Alabama pep rally - CNNPolitics.com

Trump addresses largest crowd of presidential campaign yet while in Alabama

Donald Trump tells thousands in Alabama: We'll make US better than ever

Both FOX and MSNBC claim that the actual attendance at the free rally, which Trump paid for, was about 1/2 of the 43,000 seats at the football stadium, which would be closer to 21,000-22,000.

Trump on Alabama Rally: It’s a 'Real Happening' - Breitbart


Others are a bit more more critical:

Trump’s audacious Southern spectacle is part of his strategy

Donald Trump, Alabama and the ghost of George Wallace


This critique is from a very left-leaning source, but even the pictures in it are worth a gander:

The Absolute Insanity Of Donald Trump’s Big Alabama Pep Rally, In 17 Tweets

Just for fun, since I had to stay up late anyway last night (family stuff), I watched the rally. Now, everyone is entitled to his opinion and so I am going to give mine.

1.) For what Trump wanted to achieve, he had a big success. I am talking strategema, here:

-he went to arguably the reddest state in the deep south (Alabama is roughly an R +25 state in presidential elections, far redder than Mississippi, Georgia or Florida, just a little redder than Tennessee at current) and was able to fill a football stadium with lots of people willing to see and hear him.

-he flew in with his own 757, buzzing the stadium, demonstrating his wealth. The crowd loved it.

-he gave, as usual, an impromptu speech, which the base will of course love, but impromptu can also mean "gotcha" slip up moments. These are the moments that the opposition loves to find and exploit.

-he used "I" an awful lot. The speech was much more about him than about America.

2.) As I watched the video, and the scenes before, I notice that the crowd was very, very, very, VERY white. Occasionally, I saw a darker skinner person, but there is no doubt that the minority component at this rally was very, very sparse. And other people are noticing this as well.

3.) The one Politico link makes mention that Trump is re-awakening the spirit of George Wallace, an extreme racist Governor from Alabama who made a third party bid for the Presidency in the hotly contested 1968 election.

I quote from the Politico link:

It was immigration, not segregation, that brought some 20,000 southerners — far fewer than predicted — out for Donald Trump on Friday night, but the ghost of George Wallace loomed large.

Wallace, an avowed segregationist, was the last presidential candidate to win electoral votes as a third-party candidate. The threat of Trump doing so, propelled by a hardline immigration stance that many have condemned as racist, looms over the Republican Party now as it did over the Democratic Party then, even as the enthusiasm of his following, for once, fell far short of expectations.

Wallace carried five Southern states, and Trump, who is leading early national polls in the race for the Republican nomination, touted his leads in Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida and Texas.

Trump also panned birthright citizenship as a bad deal for the U.S., saying, “We’re the only place just about that’s stupid enough to do it.” Trump’s recently released immigration plan calls for ending birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants, which is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, according to the legal consensus, though Trump disputes that point.

There were also vestiges of Wallace’s Alabama, including on the sample editions of “The First Freedom” newspaper one man handed out to drivers as they entered the parking lot. The paper’s front page included a story about “black-on-white crime in South Carolina” and an editor’s note about German media’s silence about “the actual programs these peaceful ‘neo-nazis’ stand for.”

The vast majority of supporters where white: of over 1,000 people waiting to enter on the east of the Ladd Peebles Stadium at 5 p.m., eight were black.

A black pastor opened the rally with an invocation, asking, “What if we could replace hate with love?” He was followed by an all-black middle school student council that led the crowd in the Pledge of Allegiance.

So, yeah, there is a distinct nativist element in this that is finding resonance with racist whites, I have no doubt about this at all. On the other hand, a black minister was indeed invited for the invocation, which I found to be very good.

What Trump just did was to go to the very heart of the ideological base of the Deep South, to a state that a Democrat would not win in a GE even in a massive landslide year for the Ds, and say to his fellow GOP-contenders, 'look, I can win where the heart of our party is.' And Trump is from evil, very blue New York, you know....

So, while I personally strongly disagree with many things Trump is saying, I think he achieved his goal.

And if anyone thought that the loud noises Trump has been making about immigration are going to go away, I think this rally makes it clear that nativism is going to be the centerpiece of his campaign. He is forcing the other GOP candidates to take a stand for or against: a wall, removing all 11-12 million illegal aliens, eliminating part of the 14th amendment, etc. So, regardless of who the GOP nominee will eventually be, and indeed, it could end up being Trump, the Democrats will have all of this stuff on record and will be able to use it.

Now, before some of my Rightie friends scream here, please note that I am praising Trump. He is a shrewd businessman and also a good showman. He knows how to get stuff organized and he knows how to put on a show. And a 23,000 strong crowd in a football stadium on a hot summer night really is a good feat for him. He saw potential for a far larger crowd than initially expected and he exploited it. Good for him. I really do think that he achieved what he wanted to achieve within the GOP in terms of making one more step toward becoming the permanent front-runner for the nomination.

However, the real question, one that Conservatives all over the place must ask is: how is this going to resonate with the rest of America? Every politically savvy person here knows that in order to win a presidential election, you have to win the soft-middle that can go either way in any election. How is the soft-middle going to take all this stuff with time?

And I wonder how many Conservatives out there really think that Trump is a real Conservative. The actual concrete things that he proposes are, in reality, big-government solutions to problems. But wait, I thought that Conservatives were small-government, non-interventionist types...

By saying that he would levy a 35% tax on anything that Automaker Ford produces as long as it continues with plans to build an auto-plant in Mexico, he just suggested a very big-government, intrusive, interventionist solution to a problem, and one that Conservatives like to accuse Liberals of: taxing more to get stuff done.

And I know this is going to shock some, because he and I don't get along at all, but I notice that The Rabbi has come out strongly against Trump and is saying over and over that Trump is no Conservative. Strangely enough ( ) I find myself agreeing with The Rabbi on this. When you actually measure what Trump proposes to do, you will find lots of progressivism in some of his stuff. Also, on social issues, I think it's hard to call Trump a Conservative at all. But he's made big waves, he is clearly the front runner in national nomination polling and in most all state polling (Wisconsin being the exception, to the best of my knowledge) and he surely has tapped into a reservoir of anger that is out there. Only, if you take a long, hard look at his rally audiences, we are talking mostly about white anger here. The pictures do not lie.

At the same time, Clinton had a much smaller rally. Warning: do not equate rally size with electability. Mo Udall had huge rallies in 1971 and part of 1972. He didn't get nominated. There were huge events for Reagan in 1976. He didn't get nominated that time around. John Dean was getting huge crowds in late 2003. He didn't get nominated. Far more important, I think, is the actual content of the rallies themselves.

-Stat

I'm at 1 hour and 52 minutes, and still just seeing a bunch of fat people. The circus begins at 1 hr 53 minutes, just so you know.

You really should talk! I see you haven't seen your belly button in over 40 years! Too much sauerkraut I'm sure! Fellow German!

 

[PredFan]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. By "plan", I mean a plan to pay for all of the things he is promising. How will he pay to make our mitary great and feared? How will he pay for the wall? How will he get Mexico to pay for the wall, how will he pay to deport so many people.

He says the right things but has to plan to pay for it.

I showed you ONE plan for immigration!
Did you read the simple web page?

What was "Obama's " plan at this time? Did YOU know this was what Obama told everyone THAT read his book that THIS WAS HIS PLAN???
from his book... "Dreams from My Father"...published July 18,1995!
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed.
Such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

Obama's plan was to "FOOL" people! Play the race card. Obama was actually the FIRST person to play the race card when he said..
"They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced
and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"
Obama says Republicans will use race to stoke fear


So please at this early early stage don't bitch and moan about "plans"... The biggest most effective executive actions by Trump is
A) UPHOLD current laws... NO new ones needed!
B) Do away with this idiocy in the military...
In the past it was the superiority of US military that was the major reason for our security...
but with our military having less then 14% approval of Obama, with Obama's rules of engagement stating:
“Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,” the laminated card reads.
For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests. “Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...#ixzz0raavCuPp
C) STOP the insane attack on healthcare by eliminating the biggest LIE Obama told... that later he admitted was a lie!
Remember when Obama said: "I prefer single payer health system"... he WANTED then 1,400 insurance companies to close, 400,000 people to be unemployed and OVER $100 billion a year in Federal/state/local and property taxes to disappear!
Is that the kind of President we want? One who wants Americans to lose money, lose their jobs, lose their businesses?

All Trump need do is what he stated " Make America Great Again!
Stop blaming Americans for all the world's woes!
Start remembering how many trillions of dollars Americans have given, hundreds of thousands of lives to help our fellow man!
Stop blaming American as Obama has done!

I don't know if you just are not reading my posts at all or what.

Where is the plan to pay for this stuff? You keep showing me plans of what he wants to do but none of them show how he plans to pay for this stuff. Unless you can point out where I missed it because I don't see it anywhere.

Yepp. Where is the plan to pay for this stuff??

Alone, the costs for a wall 1,954 miles in length on the southern border to Mexico will go into the hundreds of billions of dollars, including construction, personnel and upkeep. That is a very realistic figure. 200 billion is probably a conservative estimate. 600 Miles of fence had a cost of 8 Billion, just for the construction, and a fence is infinitely cheaper to build than a real wall, with watchposts and customs booths and floodlights and motion sensors and all that jazz. In fact, a conservative estimate is that a wall would be about 7 times more expensive than a fence, including the costs of removing the fence that is there and digging a deep enough foundation to keep tunnels from happening. 8 * 7 = 56 BILLION per 600 miles. 56 billion * 3.26 (which would bring us to 1,954 miles) = 182.56 BILLION for an almost 2,000 mile wall. Consider how much the walls in your own house cost, how small that is in relation to just one mile, that the wall is going to need to be far thicker, far, far higher and more weather resistant than your average house wall, and you can see that the costs shoot to heaven pretty damned fast. It's simple math, you know.

For each illegal immigrant who is found and then will be expatriated, the estimate is at 11 thousand per head to find and expel. 11,000 * 12,000,000 = 132 billion. This number does not reflect the massive hit that the housing market and the secret inland economy will take when those 12 million are gone.

So, already, we are easily at almost 315 BILLION.

And then there are the legal costs for attempting to expel children of illegal immigrants, since per 14th amendment, they are US citizens and cannot legally be expelled, especially since they have no other land of origin. To put it simply, there is no other land to repatriate them to. Who knows how many such children are here. But I estimate that the tort costs alone would be between 40-70 billion, over many, many years.

So, now we are at about 360 BILLION.

And then there will be the costs for attempting to alter the 14th amendment per introduction of a new amendment, because, contrary to Trump's fantasies, the only way to undo a constitutional amendment is with a new amendment, where the wording makes part or all of a previous amendment null and void. This will require two things to happen, and the order doesn't really matter:

Constitutional Amendment Process

The process for amending any part of the Constitution has usually taken a number of years to do. This is not a short-term project. And such an amendment cannot retroactively remove the citizenship of children already born to illegal immigrants here in the USA. For good or for bad, those children are fellow citizens. Many of them only speak English and cannot speak the language or their ancestors. Many have never travelled to the homeland of their parents, who are likely hiding in the shadows, anyway. So, in terms of trying to amend part of the 14th amendment, we are talking about a long process. Were a President "Trump" to decide to go around the 14th amendment, I suspect he would have a major fight on his hands.

As for costs, it's hard to say, but each state would have costs to bear for advertisement, discussion, referendum. Considering that any special election costs 2-5 million per state for an average sized state, far more for a state like California, alone the costs of a referendum nationwide would be around 150 MILLION. That is a small amount compared to what I've added together, but it's not far away from the foreign aid that we give to Mexico and according to Don Trump, Mexico will pay for a 183 BILLION dollar wall because they would be scared that we will take away their 500 MILLION per year. This is the moment where I start to laugh out loud...

And then there is the topic of the US Military, which, suddenly, in the eyes of the Right, is so unbelievably weak, in spite of having performed brilliantly in not just one, but two wars. So, without specifying what needs to be improved and how much of this, that and the other is necessary to improve the US Military, there is no way to put an honest price-tag on it. But I have never seen a major change in the US Military that didn't have a price-tag less than many billions of Dollars. I suspect that Trump is talking about changes around the 300-400 BILLION mark.

Put this all together and I bet (and would be willing to eat my hat with this projection) we are, when all is said and done, talking about 700 BILLION dollars or so, just this side of 1 TRILLION dollars.

And you are right: Trump has not said how he will pay for this. Anyone who thinks that Mexico is going to fork over 183 BILLION for a wall on our side of the border is taking LSD or something like that.

Like I said, it's simple math.

I have little doubt that he could get Mexico to pay for at least part of it. I just haven't heard it from him yet. Even if we spent all of that money it would be a rare case where the government didn't waste taxpayer dollars.

According to our research engine:
The U.S. Government gave a total of $209,432,920 to Mexico in 2012:

The aid was broken down in the following manner:
Economic

• Child Survival and Health: $-12,200

• Department of Defense Security Assistance: $39,854

• Development Assistance: $17,948,047

• Economic Support Fund/Security Support Assistance: $40,810,450

• Global Health and Child Survival: $3,894,197

• Narcotics Control: $27,565,779

• Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related: $7,074,531

• Other Active Grant Programs: $15,381,152

• Other State Assistance: $2,700,596

• Other USAID Assistance: $2,764

• Other USDA Assistance: $372,914

• Peace Corps: $2,000,836

• Military Assistance, Total: $91,654,000

Stop spending $200 million to Mexico is a start!
http://us-foreign-aid.insidegov.com/q/112/1590/How-much-money-does-the-U-S-give-to-Mexico

I was figuring it was something like that. I wish he would come out and say it. I could accept that.

 

[Statistikhengst]

View attachment 48044

First, here's the complete video, courtesy of WAPO:



It is in HD format, so the picture quality is better. The thing actually starts at about 1 hour and 48 minutes into the video and Trump's entrance and speech are at at roughly 2 hours and 22 minutes.

Now, there are varying opinions about how the rally went, but one thing is for sure: it was very, very well attended. The Trump people estimate that about 30,000 were there, that the stadium was about 3/4 full, which the video maybe confirms. And local TV is confirming this. Other news outlets say it was closer to 21,000. I suspect that, as with most things in life, the truth lies somewhere in the middle: probably closer to 25,000 and surely some more people poured in once he was there and speaking. This is not unusual.

The rally got lots of media coverage:

Trump draws huge crowd for speech at Alabama stadium

30,000 turn out for Donald Trump's Alabama pep rally - CNNPolitics.com

Trump addresses largest crowd of presidential campaign yet while in Alabama

Donald Trump tells thousands in Alabama: We'll make US better than ever

Both FOX and MSNBC claim that the actual attendance at the free rally, which Trump paid for, was about 1/2 of the 43,000 seats at the football stadium, which would be closer to 21,000-22,000.

Trump on Alabama Rally: It’s a 'Real Happening' - Breitbart


Others are a bit more more critical:

Trump’s audacious Southern spectacle is part of his strategy

Donald Trump, Alabama and the ghost of George Wallace


This critique is from a very left-leaning source, but even the pictures in it are worth a gander:

The Absolute Insanity Of Donald Trump’s Big Alabama Pep Rally, In 17 Tweets

Just for fun, since I had to stay up late anyway last night (family stuff), I watched the rally. Now, everyone is entitled to his opinion and so I am going to give mine.

1.) For what Trump wanted to achieve, he had a big success. I am talking strategema, here:

-he went to arguably the reddest state in the deep south (Alabama is roughly an R +25 state in presidential elections, far redder than Mississippi, Georgia or Florida, just a little redder than Tennessee at current) and was able to fill a football stadium with lots of people willing to see and hear him.

-he flew in with his own 757, buzzing the stadium, demonstrating his wealth. The crowd loved it.

-he gave, as usual, an impromptu speech, which the base will of course love, but impromptu can also mean "gotcha" slip up moments. These are the moments that the opposition loves to find and exploit.

-he used "I" an awful lot. The speech was much more about him than about America.

2.) As I watched the video, and the scenes before, I notice that the crowd was very, very, very, VERY white. Occasionally, I saw a darker skinner person, but there is no doubt that the minority component at this rally was very, very sparse. And other people are noticing this as well.

3.) The one Politico link makes mention that Trump is re-awakening the spirit of George Wallace, an extreme racist Governor from Alabama who made a third party bid for the Presidency in the hotly contested 1968 election.

I quote from the Politico link:

It was immigration, not segregation, that brought some 20,000 southerners — far fewer than predicted — out for Donald Trump on Friday night, but the ghost of George Wallace loomed large.

Wallace, an avowed segregationist, was the last presidential candidate to win electoral votes as a third-party candidate. The threat of Trump doing so, propelled by a hardline immigration stance that many have condemned as racist, looms over the Republican Party now as it did over the Democratic Party then, even as the enthusiasm of his following, for once, fell far short of expectations.

Wallace carried five Southern states, and Trump, who is leading early national polls in the race for the Republican nomination, touted his leads in Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida and Texas.

Trump also panned birthright citizenship as a bad deal for the U.S., saying, “We’re the only place just about that’s stupid enough to do it.” Trump’s recently released immigration plan calls for ending birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants, which is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, according to the legal consensus, though Trump disputes that point.

There were also vestiges of Wallace’s Alabama, including on the sample editions of “The First Freedom” newspaper one man handed out to drivers as they entered the parking lot. The paper’s front page included a story about “black-on-white crime in South Carolina” and an editor’s note about German media’s silence about “the actual programs these peaceful ‘neo-nazis’ stand for.”

The vast majority of supporters where white: of over 1,000 people waiting to enter on the east of the Ladd Peebles Stadium at 5 p.m., eight were black.

A black pastor opened the rally with an invocation, asking, “What if we could replace hate with love?” He was followed by an all-black middle school student council that led the crowd in the Pledge of Allegiance.

So, yeah, there is a distinct nativist element in this that is finding resonance with racist whites, I have no doubt about this at all. On the other hand, a black minister was indeed invited for the invocation, which I found to be very good.

What Trump just did was to go to the very heart of the ideological base of the Deep South, to a state that a Democrat would not win in a GE even in a massive landslide year for the Ds, and say to his fellow GOP-contenders, 'look, I can win where the heart of our party is.' And Trump is from evil, very blue New York, you know....

So, while I personally strongly disagree with many things Trump is saying, I think he achieved his goal.

And if anyone thought that the loud noises Trump has been making about immigration are going to go away, I think this rally makes it clear that nativism is going to be the centerpiece of his campaign. He is forcing the other GOP candidates to take a stand for or against: a wall, removing all 11-12 million illegal aliens, eliminating part of the 14th amendment, etc. So, regardless of who the GOP nominee will eventually be, and indeed, it could end up being Trump, the Democrats will have all of this stuff on record and will be able to use it.

Now, before some of my Rightie friends scream here, please note that I am praising Trump. He is a shrewd businessman and also a good showman. He knows how to get stuff organized and he knows how to put on a show. And a 23,000 strong crowd in a football stadium on a hot summer night really is a good feat for him. He saw potential for a far larger crowd than initially expected and he exploited it. Good for him. I really do think that he achieved what he wanted to achieve within the GOP in terms of making one more step toward becoming the permanent front-runner for the nomination.

However, the real question, one that Conservatives all over the place must ask is: how is this going to resonate with the rest of America? Every politically savvy person here knows that in order to win a presidential election, you have to win the soft-middle that can go either way in any election. How is the soft-middle going to take all this stuff with time?

And I wonder how many Conservatives out there really think that Trump is a real Conservative. The actual concrete things that he proposes are, in reality, big-government solutions to problems. But wait, I thought that Conservatives were small-government, non-interventionist types...

By saying that he would levy a 35% tax on anything that Automaker Ford produces as long as it continues with plans to build an auto-plant in Mexico, he just suggested a very big-government, intrusive, interventionist solution to a problem, and one that Conservatives like to accuse Liberals of: taxing more to get stuff done.

And I know this is going to shock some, because he and I don't get along at all, but I notice that The Rabbi has come out strongly against Trump and is saying over and over that Trump is no Conservative. Strangely enough ( ) I find myself agreeing with The Rabbi on this. When you actually measure what Trump proposes to do, you will find lots of progressivism in some of his stuff. Also, on social issues, I think it's hard to call Trump a Conservative at all. But he's made big waves, he is clearly the front runner in national nomination polling and in most all state polling (Wisconsin being the exception, to the best of my knowledge) and he surely has tapped into a reservoir of anger that is out there. Only, if you take a long, hard look at his rally audiences, we are talking mostly about white anger here. The pictures do not lie.

At the same time, Clinton had a much smaller rally. Warning: do not equate rally size with electability. Mo Udall had huge rallies in 1971 and part of 1972. He didn't get nominated. There were huge events for Reagan in 1976. He didn't get nominated that time around. John Dean was getting huge crowds in late 2003. He didn't get nominated. Far more important, I think, is the actual content of the rallies themselves.

-Stat

I'm at 1 hour and 52 minutes, and still just seeing a bunch of fat people. The circus begins at 1 hr 53 minutes, just so you know.

You really should talk! I see you haven't seen your belly button in over 40 years! Too much sauerkraut I'm sure! Fellow German!View attachment 48044

Are you screaming at the air, or what?

 

[PredFan]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. By "plan", I mean a plan to pay for all of the things he is promising. How will he pay to make our mitary great and feared? How will he pay for the wall? How will he get Mexico to pay for the wall, how will he pay to deport so many people.

He says the right things but has to plan to pay for it.

I showed you ONE plan for immigration!
Did you read the simple web page?

What was "Obama's " plan at this time? Did YOU know this was what Obama told everyone THAT read his book that THIS WAS HIS PLAN???
from his book... "Dreams from My Father"...published July 18,1995!
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed.
Such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

Obama's plan was to "FOOL" people! Play the race card. Obama was actually the FIRST person to play the race card when he said..
"They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced
and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"
Obama says Republicans will use race to stoke fear


So please at this early early stage don't bitch and moan about "plans"... The biggest most effective executive actions by Trump is
A) UPHOLD current laws... NO new ones needed!
B) Do away with this idiocy in the military...
In the past it was the superiority of US military that was the major reason for our security...
but with our military having less then 14% approval of Obama, with Obama's rules of engagement stating:
“Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,” the laminated card reads.
For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests. “Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...#ixzz0raavCuPp
C) STOP the insane attack on healthcare by eliminating the biggest LIE Obama told... that later he admitted was a lie!
Remember when Obama said: "I prefer single payer health system"... he WANTED then 1,400 insurance companies to close, 400,000 people to be unemployed and OVER $100 billion a year in Federal/state/local and property taxes to disappear!
Is that the kind of President we want? One who wants Americans to lose money, lose their jobs, lose their businesses?

All Trump need do is what he stated " Make America Great Again!
Stop blaming Americans for all the world's woes!
Start remembering how many trillions of dollars Americans have given, hundreds of thousands of lives to help our fellow man!
Stop blaming American as Obama has done!

I don't know if you just are not reading my posts at all or what.

Where is the plan to pay for this stuff? You keep showing me plans of what he wants to do but none of them show how he plans to pay for this stuff. Unless you can point out where I missed it because I don't see it anywhere.

Yepp. Where is the plan to pay for this stuff??

Alone, the costs for a wall 1,954 miles in length on the southern border to Mexico will go into the hundreds of billions of dollars, including construction, personnel and upkeep. That is a very realistic figure. 200 billion is probably a conservative estimate. 600 Miles of fence had a cost of 8 Billion, just for the construction, and a fence is infinitely cheaper to build than a real wall, with watchposts and customs booths and floodlights and motion sensors and all that jazz. In fact, a conservative estimate is that a wall would be about 7 times more expensive than a fence, including the costs of removing the fence that is there and digging a deep enough foundation to keep tunnels from happening. 8 * 7 = 56 BILLION per 600 miles. 56 billion * 3.26 (which would bring us to 1,954 miles) = 182.56 BILLION for an almost 2,000 mile wall. Consider how much the walls in your own house cost, how small that is in relation to just one mile, that the wall is going to need to be far thicker, far, far higher and more weather resistant than your average house wall, and you can see that the costs shoot to heaven pretty damned fast. It's simple math, you know.

For each illegal immigrant who is found and then will be expatriated, the estimate is at 11 thousand per head to find and expel. 11,000 * 12,000,000 = 132 billion. This number does not reflect the massive hit that the housing market and the secret inland economy will take when those 12 million are gone.

So, already, we are easily at almost 315 BILLION.

And then there are the legal costs for attempting to expel children of illegal immigrants, since per 14th amendment, they are US citizens and cannot legally be expelled, especially since they have no other land of origin. To put it simply, there is no other land to repatriate them to. Who knows how many such children are here. But I estimate that the tort costs alone would be between 40-70 billion, over many, many years.

So, now we are at about 360 BILLION.

And then there will be the costs for attempting to alter the 14th amendment per introduction of a new amendment, because, contrary to Trump's fantasies, the only way to undo a constitutional amendment is with a new amendment, where the wording makes part or all of a previous amendment null and void. This will require two things to happen, and the order doesn't really matter:

Constitutional Amendment Process

The process for amending any part of the Constitution has usually taken a number of years to do. This is not a short-term project. And such an amendment cannot retroactively remove the citizenship of children already born to illegal immigrants here in the USA. For good or for bad, those children are fellow citizens. Many of them only speak English and cannot speak the language or their ancestors. Many have never travelled to the homeland of their parents, who are likely hiding in the shadows, anyway. So, in terms of trying to amend part of the 14th amendment, we are talking about a long process. Were a President "Trump" to decide to go around the 14th amendment, I suspect he would have a major fight on his hands.

As for costs, it's hard to say, but each state would have costs to bear for advertisement, discussion, referendum. Considering that any special election costs 2-5 million per state for an average sized state, far more for a state like California, alone the costs of a referendum nationwide would be around 150 MILLION. That is a small amount compared to what I've added together, but it's not far away from the foreign aid that we give to Mexico and according to Don Trump, Mexico will pay for a 183 BILLION dollar wall because they would be scared that we will take away their 500 MILLION per year. This is the moment where I start to laugh out loud...

And then there is the topic of the US Military, which, suddenly, in the eyes of the Right, is so unbelievably weak, in spite of having performed brilliantly in not just one, but two wars. So, without specifying what needs to be improved and how much of this, that and the other is necessary to improve the US Military, there is no way to put an honest price-tag on it. But I have never seen a major change in the US Military that didn't have a price-tag less than many billions of Dollars. I suspect that Trump is talking about changes around the 300-400 BILLION mark.

Put this all together and I bet (and would be willing to eat my hat with this projection) we are, when all is said and done, talking about 700 BILLION dollars or so, just this side of 1 TRILLION dollars.

And you are right: Trump has not said how he will pay for this. Anyone who thinks that Mexico is going to fork over 183 BILLION for a wall on our side of the border is taking LSD or something like that.

Like I said, it's simple math.

I have little doubt that he could get Mexico to pay for at least part of it. I just haven't heard it from him yet. Even if we spent all of that money it would be a rare case where the government didn't waste taxpayer dollars.

Let's see: $500,000,000 in US aid to Mexico, which they would lose if they don't pay $200,000,000,000 for a wall.

Now, which one of those figures has LESS zeros? You do the math.

Trump's nativist diatribe about Mexico, as if Mexico is suddenly our enemy, may make some very emotionally immature people feel better, but I guarantee you, Mexico is not going to pay for a wall that would be built on our side of the border. 500 million is peanuts in comparison to 200 Billion.

You have it wrong. Instead of paying that money to Mexico, use it to build the wall. In a sense, they paid for the wall wether they agreed or not. Sounds like a plan to me.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I showed you ONE plan for immigration!
Did you read the simple web page?

What was "Obama's " plan at this time? Did YOU know this was what Obama told everyone THAT read his book that THIS WAS HIS PLAN???
from his book... "Dreams from My Father"...published July 18,1995!
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed.
Such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

Obama's plan was to "FOOL" people! Play the race card. Obama was actually the FIRST person to play the race card when he said..
"They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced
and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"
Obama says Republicans will use race to stoke fear


So please at this early early stage don't bitch and moan about "plans"... The biggest most effective executive actions by Trump is
A) UPHOLD current laws... NO new ones needed!
B) Do away with this idiocy in the military...
In the past it was the superiority of US military that was the major reason for our security...
but with our military having less then 14% approval of Obama, with Obama's rules of engagement stating:
“Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,” the laminated card reads.
For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests. “Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...#ixzz0raavCuPp
C) STOP the insane attack on healthcare by eliminating the biggest LIE Obama told... that later he admitted was a lie!
Remember when Obama said: "I prefer single payer health system"... he WANTED then 1,400 insurance companies to close, 400,000 people to be unemployed and OVER $100 billion a year in Federal/state/local and property taxes to disappear!
Is that the kind of President we want? One who wants Americans to lose money, lose their jobs, lose their businesses?

All Trump need do is what he stated " Make America Great Again!
Stop blaming Americans for all the world's woes!
Start remembering how many trillions of dollars Americans have given, hundreds of thousands of lives to help our fellow man!
Stop blaming American as Obama has done!

I don't know if you just are not reading my posts at all or what.

Where is the plan to pay for this stuff? You keep showing me plans of what he wants to do but none of them show how he plans to pay for this stuff. Unless you can point out where I missed it because I don't see it anywhere.

Yepp. Where is the plan to pay for this stuff??

Alone, the costs for a wall 1,954 miles in length on the southern border to Mexico will go into the hundreds of billions of dollars, including construction, personnel and upkeep. That is a very realistic figure. 200 billion is probably a conservative estimate. 600 Miles of fence had a cost of 8 Billion, just for the construction, and a fence is infinitely cheaper to build than a real wall, with watchposts and customs booths and floodlights and motion sensors and all that jazz. In fact, a conservative estimate is that a wall would be about 7 times more expensive than a fence, including the costs of removing the fence that is there and digging a deep enough foundation to keep tunnels from happening. 8 * 7 = 56 BILLION per 600 miles. 56 billion * 3.26 (which would bring us to 1,954 miles) = 182.56 BILLION for an almost 2,000 mile wall. Consider how much the walls in your own house cost, how small that is in relation to just one mile, that the wall is going to need to be far thicker, far, far higher and more weather resistant than your average house wall, and you can see that the costs shoot to heaven pretty damned fast. It's simple math, you know.

For each illegal immigrant who is found and then will be expatriated, the estimate is at 11 thousand per head to find and expel. 11,000 * 12,000,000 = 132 billion. This number does not reflect the massive hit that the housing market and the secret inland economy will take when those 12 million are gone.

So, already, we are easily at almost 315 BILLION.

And then there are the legal costs for attempting to expel children of illegal immigrants, since per 14th amendment, they are US citizens and cannot legally be expelled, especially since they have no other land of origin. To put it simply, there is no other land to repatriate them to. Who knows how many such children are here. But I estimate that the tort costs alone would be between 40-70 billion, over many, many years.

So, now we are at about 360 BILLION.

And then there will be the costs for attempting to alter the 14th amendment per introduction of a new amendment, because, contrary to Trump's fantasies, the only way to undo a constitutional amendment is with a new amendment, where the wording makes part or all of a previous amendment null and void. This will require two things to happen, and the order doesn't really matter:

Constitutional Amendment Process

The process for amending any part of the Constitution has usually taken a number of years to do. This is not a short-term project. And such an amendment cannot retroactively remove the citizenship of children already born to illegal immigrants here in the USA. For good or for bad, those children are fellow citizens. Many of them only speak English and cannot speak the language or their ancestors. Many have never travelled to the homeland of their parents, who are likely hiding in the shadows, anyway. So, in terms of trying to amend part of the 14th amendment, we are talking about a long process. Were a President "Trump" to decide to go around the 14th amendment, I suspect he would have a major fight on his hands.

As for costs, it's hard to say, but each state would have costs to bear for advertisement, discussion, referendum. Considering that any special election costs 2-5 million per state for an average sized state, far more for a state like California, alone the costs of a referendum nationwide would be around 150 MILLION. That is a small amount compared to what I've added together, but it's not far away from the foreign aid that we give to Mexico and according to Don Trump, Mexico will pay for a 183 BILLION dollar wall because they would be scared that we will take away their 500 MILLION per year. This is the moment where I start to laugh out loud...

And then there is the topic of the US Military, which, suddenly, in the eyes of the Right, is so unbelievably weak, in spite of having performed brilliantly in not just one, but two wars. So, without specifying what needs to be improved and how much of this, that and the other is necessary to improve the US Military, there is no way to put an honest price-tag on it. But I have never seen a major change in the US Military that didn't have a price-tag less than many billions of Dollars. I suspect that Trump is talking about changes around the 300-400 BILLION mark.

Put this all together and I bet (and would be willing to eat my hat with this projection) we are, when all is said and done, talking about 700 BILLION dollars or so, just this side of 1 TRILLION dollars.

And you are right: Trump has not said how he will pay for this. Anyone who thinks that Mexico is going to fork over 183 BILLION for a wall on our side of the border is taking LSD or something like that.

Like I said, it's simple math.

I have little doubt that he could get Mexico to pay for at least part of it. I just haven't heard it from him yet. Even if we spent all of that money it would be a rare case where the government didn't waste taxpayer dollars.

Let's see: $500,000,000 in US aid to Mexico, which they would lose if they don't pay $200,000,000,000 for a wall.

Now, which one of those figures has LESS zeros? You do the math.

Trump's nativist diatribe about Mexico, as if Mexico is suddenly our enemy, may make some very emotionally immature people feel better, but I guarantee you, Mexico is not going to pay for a wall that would be built on our side of the border. 500 million is peanuts in comparison to 200 Billion.

You have it wrong. Instead of paying that money to Mexico, use it to build the wall. In a sense, they paid for the wall wether they agreed or not. Sounds like a plan to me.

This may surprise you, but I have no problem in the world with that. Let's see how far those 500 million dollars will go in comparison to 200 BILLION. Yepp, 500 million is 2.5% of 200 billion... Oh, and btw, all the favors that we get from other nations when we give them this pittance called "foreign aid" - well, when the favors dry up, that's not my problem. The Right loves to clutch its pearls over the topic of foreign aid, but that money is literally a mini-drop in a huge bucket.

But as I said, I'm cool with letting the foreign aid to Mexico dry up. But just remember, everything in life is interconnected, whether we like it or not.

I do want to thank for for approaching this like an adult.

Hope you are well and prospering.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I was taken by Trump's embrace of Billy Graham and the Bible. He's a devout Christian and he'll make America great again.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I was taken by Trump's embrace of Billy Graham and the Bible. He's a devout Christian and he'll make America great again.

He sure acts like an American "Christian" that's for sure, meaning, nothing like an actual one.

 

[PredFan]

I don't know if you just are not reading my posts at all or what.

Where is the plan to pay for this stuff? You keep showing me plans of what he wants to do but none of them show how he plans to pay for this stuff. Unless you can point out where I missed it because I don't see it anywhere.

Yepp. Where is the plan to pay for this stuff??

Alone, the costs for a wall 1,954 miles in length on the southern border to Mexico will go into the hundreds of billions of dollars, including construction, personnel and upkeep. That is a very realistic figure. 200 billion is probably a conservative estimate. 600 Miles of fence had a cost of 8 Billion, just for the construction, and a fence is infinitely cheaper to build than a real wall, with watchposts and customs booths and floodlights and motion sensors and all that jazz. In fact, a conservative estimate is that a wall would be about 7 times more expensive than a fence, including the costs of removing the fence that is there and digging a deep enough foundation to keep tunnels from happening. 8 * 7 = 56 BILLION per 600 miles. 56 billion * 3.26 (which would bring us to 1,954 miles) = 182.56 BILLION for an almost 2,000 mile wall. Consider how much the walls in your own house cost, how small that is in relation to just one mile, that the wall is going to need to be far thicker, far, far higher and more weather resistant than your average house wall, and you can see that the costs shoot to heaven pretty damned fast. It's simple math, you know.

For each illegal immigrant who is found and then will be expatriated, the estimate is at 11 thousand per head to find and expel. 11,000 * 12,000,000 = 132 billion. This number does not reflect the massive hit that the housing market and the secret inland economy will take when those 12 million are gone.

So, already, we are easily at almost 315 BILLION.

And then there are the legal costs for attempting to expel children of illegal immigrants, since per 14th amendment, they are US citizens and cannot legally be expelled, especially since they have no other land of origin. To put it simply, there is no other land to repatriate them to. Who knows how many such children are here. But I estimate that the tort costs alone would be between 40-70 billion, over many, many years.

So, now we are at about 360 BILLION.

And then there will be the costs for attempting to alter the 14th amendment per introduction of a new amendment, because, contrary to Trump's fantasies, the only way to undo a constitutional amendment is with a new amendment, where the wording makes part or all of a previous amendment null and void. This will require two things to happen, and the order doesn't really matter:

Constitutional Amendment Process

The process for amending any part of the Constitution has usually taken a number of years to do. This is not a short-term project. And such an amendment cannot retroactively remove the citizenship of children already born to illegal immigrants here in the USA. For good or for bad, those children are fellow citizens. Many of them only speak English and cannot speak the language or their ancestors. Many have never travelled to the homeland of their parents, who are likely hiding in the shadows, anyway. So, in terms of trying to amend part of the 14th amendment, we are talking about a long process. Were a President "Trump" to decide to go around the 14th amendment, I suspect he would have a major fight on his hands.

As for costs, it's hard to say, but each state would have costs to bear for advertisement, discussion, referendum. Considering that any special election costs 2-5 million per state for an average sized state, far more for a state like California, alone the costs of a referendum nationwide would be around 150 MILLION. That is a small amount compared to what I've added together, but it's not far away from the foreign aid that we give to Mexico and according to Don Trump, Mexico will pay for a 183 BILLION dollar wall because they would be scared that we will take away their 500 MILLION per year. This is the moment where I start to laugh out loud...

And then there is the topic of the US Military, which, suddenly, in the eyes of the Right, is so unbelievably weak, in spite of having performed brilliantly in not just one, but two wars. So, without specifying what needs to be improved and how much of this, that and the other is necessary to improve the US Military, there is no way to put an honest price-tag on it. But I have never seen a major change in the US Military that didn't have a price-tag less than many billions of Dollars. I suspect that Trump is talking about changes around the 300-400 BILLION mark.

Put this all together and I bet (and would be willing to eat my hat with this projection) we are, when all is said and done, talking about 700 BILLION dollars or so, just this side of 1 TRILLION dollars.

And you are right: Trump has not said how he will pay for this. Anyone who thinks that Mexico is going to fork over 183 BILLION for a wall on our side of the border is taking LSD or something like that.

Like I said, it's simple math.

I have little doubt that he could get Mexico to pay for at least part of it. I just haven't heard it from him yet. Even if we spent all of that money it would be a rare case where the government didn't waste taxpayer dollars.

Let's see: $500,000,000 in US aid to Mexico, which they would lose if they don't pay $200,000,000,000 for a wall.

Now, which one of those figures has LESS zeros? You do the math.

Trump's nativist diatribe about Mexico, as if Mexico is suddenly our enemy, may make some very emotionally immature people feel better, but I guarantee you, Mexico is not going to pay for a wall that would be built on our side of the border. 500 million is peanuts in comparison to 200 Billion.

You have it wrong. Instead of paying that money to Mexico, use it to build the wall. In a sense, they paid for the wall wether they agreed or not. Sounds like a plan to me.

This may surprise you, but I have no problem in the world with that. Let's see how far those 500 million dollars will go in comparison to 200 BILLION. Yepp, 500 million is 2.5% of 200 billion... Oh, and btw, all the favors that we get from other nations when we give them this pittance called "foreign aid" - well, when the favors dry up, that's not my problem. The Right loves to clutch its pearls over the topic of foreign aid, but that money is literally a mini-drop in a huge bucket.

But as I said, I'm cool with letting the foreign aid to Mexico dry up. But just remember, everything in life is interconnected, whether we like it or not.

I do want to thank for for approaching this like an adult.

Hope you are well and prospering.

That said, I never acknowledged your take on the cost of building the wall. I don't see why $200 million wouldn't buy it.

As far as my being civil goes, I'm not sure how or why that happened. I must be getting senile.

 

[Slyhunter]

There is ONE glaring aspect missing from Trump's thumping of Ford,Nabisco,etc. companies moving plants overseas or to Mexico.
When he described in his speech last night of putting a 35% tariff on Fords coming into USA built in Mexico he totally forgets the number one reason those companies move overseas. Labor costs.

In building a car labor at 21% is the 2nd highest cost.
Raw materials – the biggest cost driver in the auto industry - Market Realist
Mexico average hourly wage: Mexican minimum wage in 2014 will be $5 dollars - a day
MGR - the Mexico Gulf Reporter: Mexican minimum wage in 2014 will be $5 dollars - a day
Q: Do auto workers really make more than $70 per hour?
A: No. That figure is derived from what the auto companies pay in wages, health, retirement and other benefits, and includes the cost of providing
benefits to retirees Auto Worker Salaries

Now of course the totally ignorant FACTCHECK people think that other costs are what paid by the government???
So compare $70/hr times 8 hours or $560/day to $5/day in Mexico.... SEEMS like a no brainer to me!!!

So what drives this $560/day labor costs??? Labor Unions!!!

How will Trump trump that ??


View attachment 48010

Agreed, and this is again, my problem with Trump; all talk and no plan. I like what he says, but let's hear the plan.

Well that is an exaggeration "all talk no plan" at least when it comes to "illegal immigration".
Which by the way is first and foremost NOW what Trump uses when ever asked about the "immigration" problem... he responds and correctly...
"illegal immigration"! Because like Trump I am all for "LEGAL IMMIGRATION"!
After all we ALL are from some other country in our ancestors! BUT legally! I have a daughter-in-law who is a "legal immigrant" and became a
NATURALIZED CITIZEN. One who, being born an alien, has lawfully become a citizen of the United States Under the constitution and laws.
She has all the rights of a natural born citizen, except that of being eligible as president or vice-president of the United States.

Here is the "illegal immigration" plan as created by Trump and endorsed by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globetrotting donors. We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own. That must change. Here are the three core principles of real immigration reform:

1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.

2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.

3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.

Now there is more details from this web site: Immigration Reform

Sorry, I should have been more clear. By "plan", I mean a plan to pay for all of the things he is promising. How will he pay to make our mitary great and feared? How will he pay for the wall? How will he get Mexico to pay for the wall, how will he pay to deport so many people.

He says the right things but has to plan to pay for it.

He already said. Pay for the wall via tariffs. Iraq needs us to go in and kill isis we charge them for the service. The problem is you are not listening.

 

[PredFan]

There is ONE glaring aspect missing from Trump's thumping of Ford,Nabisco,etc. companies moving plants overseas or to Mexico.
When he described in his speech last night of putting a 35% tariff on Fords coming into USA built in Mexico he totally forgets the number one reason those companies move overseas. Labor costs.

In building a car labor at 21% is the 2nd highest cost.
Raw materials – the biggest cost driver in the auto industry - Market Realist
Mexico average hourly wage: Mexican minimum wage in 2014 will be $5 dollars - a day
MGR - the Mexico Gulf Reporter: Mexican minimum wage in 2014 will be $5 dollars - a day
Q: Do auto workers really make more than $70 per hour?
A: No. That figure is derived from what the auto companies pay in wages, health, retirement and other benefits, and includes the cost of providing
benefits to retirees Auto Worker Salaries

Now of course the totally ignorant FACTCHECK people think that other costs are what paid by the government???
So compare $70/hr times 8 hours or $560/day to $5/day in Mexico.... SEEMS like a no brainer to me!!!

So what drives this $560/day labor costs??? Labor Unions!!!

How will Trump trump that ??


View attachment 48010

Agreed, and this is again, my problem with Trump; all talk and no plan. I like what he says, but let's hear the plan.

Well that is an exaggeration "all talk no plan" at least when it comes to "illegal immigration".
Which by the way is first and foremost NOW what Trump uses when ever asked about the "immigration" problem... he responds and correctly...
"illegal immigration"! Because like Trump I am all for "LEGAL IMMIGRATION"!
After all we ALL are from some other country in our ancestors! BUT legally! I have a daughter-in-law who is a "legal immigrant" and became a
NATURALIZED CITIZEN. One who, being born an alien, has lawfully become a citizen of the United States Under the constitution and laws.
She has all the rights of a natural born citizen, except that of being eligible as president or vice-president of the United States.

Here is the "illegal immigration" plan as created by Trump and endorsed by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globetrotting donors. We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own. That must change. Here are the three core principles of real immigration reform:

1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.

2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.

3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.

Now there is more details from this web site: Immigration Reform

Sorry, I should have been more clear. By "plan", I mean a plan to pay for all of the things he is promising. How will he pay to make our mitary great and feared? How will he pay for the wall? How will he get Mexico to pay for the wall, how will he pay to deport so many people.

He says the right things but has to plan to pay for it.

He already said. Pay for the wall via tariffs. Iraq needs us to go in and kill isis we charge them for the service. The problem is you are not listening.

Show me where that was in the previous posts.

 

[Vandalshandle]

There is ONE glaring aspect missing from Trump's thumping of Ford,Nabisco,etc. companies moving plants overseas or to Mexico.
When he described in his speech last night of putting a 35% tariff on Fords coming into USA built in Mexico he totally forgets the number one reason those companies move overseas. Labor costs.

In building a car labor at 21% is the 2nd highest cost.
Raw materials – the biggest cost driver in the auto industry - Market Realist
Mexico average hourly wage: Mexican minimum wage in 2014 will be $5 dollars - a day
MGR - the Mexico Gulf Reporter: Mexican minimum wage in 2014 will be $5 dollars - a day
Q: Do auto workers really make more than $70 per hour?
A: No. That figure is derived from what the auto companies pay in wages, health, retirement and other benefits, and includes the cost of providing
benefits to retirees Auto Worker Salaries

Now of course the totally ignorant FACTCHECK people think that other costs are what paid by the government???
So compare $70/hr times 8 hours or $560/day to $5/day in Mexico.... SEEMS like a no brainer to me!!!

So what drives this $560/day labor costs??? Labor Unions!!!

How will Trump trump that ??


View attachment 48010

Agreed, and this is again, my problem with Trump; all talk and no plan. I like what he says, but let's hear the plan.

Well that is an exaggeration "all talk no plan" at least when it comes to "illegal immigration".
Which by the way is first and foremost NOW what Trump uses when ever asked about the "immigration" problem... he responds and correctly...
"illegal immigration"! Because like Trump I am all for "LEGAL IMMIGRATION"!
After all we ALL are from some other country in our ancestors! BUT legally! I have a daughter-in-law who is a "legal immigrant" and became a
NATURALIZED CITIZEN. One who, being born an alien, has lawfully become a citizen of the United States Under the constitution and laws.
She has all the rights of a natural born citizen, except that of being eligible as president or vice-president of the United States.

Here is the "illegal immigration" plan as created by Trump and endorsed by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globetrotting donors. We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own. That must change. Here are the three core principles of real immigration reform:

1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.

2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.

3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.

Now there is more details from this web site: Immigration Reform

Sorry, I should have been more clear. By "plan", I mean a plan to pay for all of the things he is promising. How will he pay to make our mitary great and feared? How will he pay for the wall? How will he get Mexico to pay for the wall, how will he pay to deport so many people.

He says the right things but has to plan to pay for it.

He already said. Pay for the wall via tariffs. Iraq needs us to go in and kill isis we charge them for the service. The problem is you are not listening.

You are aware are you not, that putting a tariff on a Mexican import means only one of two things:
1. The American who buys that product ends up paying the tariff out of his own pocket, which has been factored into the price, or
2. The product is now too expensive to buy, so the tariff is never collected, because the item is not imported.

So, as an American consumer, it is, Heads=You lose. Tails=You don't win.

Thanks, Trump! You are an economic genius!

 

[Slyhunter]

There is ONE glaring aspect missing from Trump's thumping of Ford,Nabisco,etc. companies moving plants overseas or to Mexico.
When he described in his speech last night of putting a 35% tariff on Fords coming into USA built in Mexico he totally forgets the number one reason those companies move overseas. Labor costs.

In building a car labor at 21% is the 2nd highest cost.
Raw materials – the biggest cost driver in the auto industry - Market Realist
Mexico average hourly wage: Mexican minimum wage in 2014 will be $5 dollars - a day
MGR - the Mexico Gulf Reporter: Mexican minimum wage in 2014 will be $5 dollars - a day
Q: Do auto workers really make more than $70 per hour?
A: No. That figure is derived from what the auto companies pay in wages, health, retirement and other benefits, and includes the cost of providing
benefits to retirees Auto Worker Salaries

Now of course the totally ignorant FACTCHECK people think that other costs are what paid by the government???
So compare $70/hr times 8 hours or $560/day to $5/day in Mexico.... SEEMS like a no brainer to me!!!

So what drives this $560/day labor costs??? Labor Unions!!!

How will Trump trump that ??


View attachment 48010

Agreed, and this is again, my problem with Trump; all talk and no plan. I like what he says, but let's hear the plan.

Well that is an exaggeration "all talk no plan" at least when it comes to "illegal immigration".
Which by the way is first and foremost NOW what Trump uses when ever asked about the "immigration" problem... he responds and correctly...
"illegal immigration"! Because like Trump I am all for "LEGAL IMMIGRATION"!
After all we ALL are from some other country in our ancestors! BUT legally! I have a daughter-in-law who is a "legal immigrant" and became a
NATURALIZED CITIZEN. One who, being born an alien, has lawfully become a citizen of the United States Under the constitution and laws.
She has all the rights of a natural born citizen, except that of being eligible as president or vice-president of the United States.

Here is the "illegal immigration" plan as created by Trump and endorsed by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globetrotting donors. We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own. That must change. Here are the three core principles of real immigration reform:

1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.

2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.

3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.

Now there is more details from this web site: Immigration Reform

Sorry, I should have been more clear. By "plan", I mean a plan to pay for all of the things he is promising. How will he pay to make our mitary great and feared? How will he pay for the wall? How will he get Mexico to pay for the wall, how will he pay to deport so many people.

He says the right things but has to plan to pay for it.

He already said. Pay for the wall via tariffs. Iraq needs us to go in and kill isis we charge them for the service. The problem is you are not listening.

Show me where that was in the previous posts.

Why does everything have to be written out. Listen to his interviews. He says how on there. Is he supposed to repeat every damn thing every time he has an interview so you individual can finally get the damn message?

 

[Slyhunter]

There is ONE glaring aspect missing from Trump's thumping of Ford,Nabisco,etc. companies moving plants overseas or to Mexico.
When he described in his speech last night of putting a 35% tariff on Fords coming into USA built in Mexico he totally forgets the number one reason those companies move overseas. Labor costs.

In building a car labor at 21% is the 2nd highest cost.
Raw materials – the biggest cost driver in the auto industry - Market Realist
Mexico average hourly wage: Mexican minimum wage in 2014 will be $5 dollars - a day
MGR - the Mexico Gulf Reporter: Mexican minimum wage in 2014 will be $5 dollars - a day
Q: Do auto workers really make more than $70 per hour?
A: No. That figure is derived from what the auto companies pay in wages, health, retirement and other benefits, and includes the cost of providing
benefits to retirees Auto Worker Salaries

Now of course the totally ignorant FACTCHECK people think that other costs are what paid by the government???
So compare $70/hr times 8 hours or $560/day to $5/day in Mexico.... SEEMS like a no brainer to me!!!

So what drives this $560/day labor costs??? Labor Unions!!!

How will Trump trump that ??


View attachment 48010

Agreed, and this is again, my problem with Trump; all talk and no plan. I like what he says, but let's hear the plan.

Well that is an exaggeration "all talk no plan" at least when it comes to "illegal immigration".
Which by the way is first and foremost NOW what Trump uses when ever asked about the "immigration" problem... he responds and correctly...
"illegal immigration"! Because like Trump I am all for "LEGAL IMMIGRATION"!
After all we ALL are from some other country in our ancestors! BUT legally! I have a daughter-in-law who is a "legal immigrant" and became a
NATURALIZED CITIZEN. One who, being born an alien, has lawfully become a citizen of the United States Under the constitution and laws.
She has all the rights of a natural born citizen, except that of being eligible as president or vice-president of the United States.

Here is the "illegal immigration" plan as created by Trump and endorsed by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globetrotting donors. We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own. That must change. Here are the three core principles of real immigration reform:

1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.

2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.

3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.

Now there is more details from this web site: Immigration Reform

Sorry, I should have been more clear. By "plan", I mean a plan to pay for all of the things he is promising. How will he pay to make our mitary great and feared? How will he pay for the wall? How will he get Mexico to pay for the wall, how will he pay to deport so many people.

He says the right things but has to plan to pay for it.

He already said. Pay for the wall via tariffs. Iraq needs us to go in and kill isis we charge them for the service. The problem is you are not listening.

You are aware are you not, that putting a tariff on a Mexican import means only one of two things:
1. The American who buys that product ends up paying the tariff out of his own pocket, which has been factored into the price, or
2. The product is now too expensive to buy, so the tariff is never collected, because the item is not imported.

So, as an American consumer, it is, Heads=You lose. Tails=You don't win.

Thanks, Trump! You are an economic genius!

It isn't imported and we make it here to sell to that American so more Americans have jobs. Win win.