CDZ What to take seriously from Trump?

[Toronado3800]

I get soo sick of silly things Trump says.

In a way I hope he is an evil genius purposely misdirecting us from whatever he is not accomplishing by distracting us with a series of inflammatory vague quotes which can be proven or disproven by depending on where you set the goal posts.

Then again I fear we have elected a man who can't keep his mouth shut. I feel qualified to recognize a narcissistic sociopath who like the sound of his own voice .

Actions speak louder than words so perhaps we should ignore his words and focus on the legislative accomplishments and Executive Orders? You can talk about banning this or that all day long but if you do nothing about it there is no change.

Or are the words a big part of it? Sometime speeches are important to motivate people or give the idea the continuing recovery from the great recession is your doing. To be fair, providing people with faith in a resurgence and boosting morale IS important.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Trump playing with the left while he reshapes the US Judicial system for the next 40 years:

 

[usmbguest5318]

I get soo sick of silly things Trump says.

You, I and surely millions of others. I'm at the point whereby I can't even stand listening to him speak; I have to read the transcripts. When I listen to him discuss anything having to do with his duties or to his expositions on the world as he sees it, I find myself repeatedly wondering how in the world it is that a grown man having the advantages he's had be such a deuced and execrable dullard. That the man rarely, when speaking off the cuff, manages to form complete sentences or utter complete thoughts just adds insult to the insufferability of that man.

 

[Ssoyd]

Trump playing with the left while he reshapes the US Judicial system for the next 40 years:

Trump isn't that smart. He's a 70 year old child who has no control over his emotions or what he says.

 

[MACAULAY]

Partial Response:

1) The O. P has a long difficult education before him, with regard to the topic he has assigned himself. It will be particularly hard because he doesn't want to hear the truth about Don Trump. He wants to misunderstand him, because he wants to hate him.

2) I don't have the time or inclination, or even the ability, to educate anyone who doesn't want to learn...who doesn't want to hear anything said on Trump's behalf.

3) So, I will just make one point and give one example.

The point is: Liberals insist on taking him absolutely literally, even though they never hold their own politicians to the same standard.

The example is: I will build a great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for it.

Liberals knew Mexico would never just up and write a check for the wall, and so that is exactly what they (including the O. P., I expect) is what they pretended he meant.

Conservatives, on the other hand, also knew Mexico would never just up and write a check for the wall, but they were so delighted that an American Presidential Candidate was willing to commit to doing his very best to STOPPING the Invasion of America by Mexico...actually by the dregs of Mexican Society---as the Rich and Middle Class; the successful people in Mexico---stay where they are.

We understood that; you obviously did not.

Also, Conservatives had sense enough to understand Mexico would never just up and write a check for the wall, but they also understood that stopping the Invasion would bring such benefits to America that Mexico would essentially be paying for the wall.

For example, a down payment was made on Mexico paying indirectly for the Wall, right after Trump was elected---when FORD announce it would built its newest plant in the USA and not in Mexico as previously planned when the Marxist Obama was President.

A down payment was made when illegal immigration, the Invasion that Obama invited, slowed way way down....meaning Mexico had to pay for more of its dregs, and the U.S. A had to pay for less and less of them. The lighter the burden on social services, like welfare, and like teachers who have to teach Spanish instead of the national language--English, the better. Just two examples.

We understand this; you obviously do not.

If you can learn from this example....which is unlikely because you obviously wish to be willingly blind....then you will be better prepared yo know what Trump is talking about in the future.

 

[Toronado3800]

Partial Response:

1) The O. P has a long difficult education before him, with regard to the topic he has assigned himself. It will be particularly hard because he doesn't want to hear the truth about Don Trump. He wants to misunderstand him, because he wants to hate him.

2) I don't have the time or inclination, or even the ability, to educate anyone who doesn't want to learn...who doesn't want to hear anything said on Trump's behalf.

3) So, I will just make one point and give one example.

The point is: Liberals insist on taking him absolutely literally, even though they never hold their own politicians to the same standard.

The example is: I will build a great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for it.

Liberals knew Mexico would never just up and write a check for the wall, and so that is exactly what they (including the O. P., I expect) is what they pretended he meant.

Conservatives, on the other hand, also knew Mexico would never just up and write a check for the wall, but they were so delighted that an American Presidential Candidate was willing to commit to doing his very best to STOPPING the Invasion of America by Mexico...actually by the dregs of Mexican Society---as the Rich and Middle Class; the successful people in Mexico---stay where they are.

We understood that; you obviously did not.

Also, Conservatives had sense enough to understand Mexico would never just up and write a check for the wall, but they also understood that stopping the Invasion would bring such benefits to America that Mexico would essentially be paying for the wall.

For example, a down payment was made on Mexico paying indirectly for the Wall, right after Trump was elected---when FORD announce it would built its newest plant in the USA and not in Mexico as previously planned when the Marxist Obama was President.

A down payment was made when illegal immigration, the Invasion that Obama invited, slowed way way down....meaning Mexico had to pay for more of its dregs, and the U.S. A had to pay for less and less of them. The lighter the burden on social services, like welfare, and like teachers who have to teach Spanish instead of the national language--English, the better. Just two examples.

We understand this; you obviously do not.

If you can learn from this example....which is unlikely because you obviously wish to be willingly blind....then you will be better prepared yo know what Trump is talking about in the future.

Partial Response:

1) The O. P has a long difficult education before him, with regard to the topic he has assigned himself. It will be particularly hard because he doesn't want to hear the truth about Don Trump. He wants to misunderstand him, because he wants to hate him.

2) I don't have the time or inclination, or even the ability, to educate anyone who doesn't want to learn...who doesn't want to hear anything said on Trump's behalf.

3) So, I will just make one point and give one example.

The point is: Liberals insist on taking him absolutely literally, even though they never hold their own politicians to the same standard.

The example is: I will build a great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for it.

Liberals knew Mexico would never just up and write a check for the wall, and so that is exactly what they (including the O. P., I expect) is what they pretended he meant.

Conservatives, on the other hand, also knew Mexico would never just up and write a check for the wall, but they were so delighted that an American Presidential Candidate was willing to commit to doing his very best to STOPPING the Invasion of America by Mexico...actually by the dregs of Mexican Society---as the Rich and Middle Class; the successful people in Mexico---stay where they are.

We understood that; you obviously did not.

Also, Conservatives had sense enough to understand Mexico would never just up and write a check for the wall, but they also understood that stopping the Invasion would bring such benefits to America that Mexico would essentially be paying for the wall.

For example, a down payment was made on Mexico paying indirectly for the Wall, right after Trump was elected---when FORD announce it would built its newest plant in the USA and not in Mexico as previously planned when the Marxist Obama was President.

A down payment was made when illegal immigration, the Invasion that Obama invited, slowed way way down....meaning Mexico had to pay for more of its dregs, and the U.S. A had to pay for less and less of them. The lighter the burden on social services, like welfare, and like teachers who have to teach Spanish instead of the national language--English, the better. Just two examples.

We understand this; you obviously do not.

If you can learn from this example....which is unlikely because you obviously wish to be willingly blind....then you will be better prepared yo know what Trump is talking about in the future.

OK. Again, I'm slow I suppose in your condescending point of view so explain this to me.

Obama invited in Mexicans we did not have an illegal problem under either Bush or Clinton? That isn't how I remember it from my time at the railroad.

Then you call a fellow who loves the death penalty and the military blind. I do believe you qualified to speak for what Trump means.

Your post says Trump is soo poorly spoken we just have to ask someone else what he meant.

Whenever my wife or someone goes to translate what I meant they are usually trying to sugar coat it so we keep friends I don't value. I suspect you are translating for Donald to make him seem nicer or more in touch with his capabilities.

 

[MarathonMike]

I view Donald Trump in a totally different light. I see a man who had everything, who knew that the Presidency would be a shit storm, and he stepped up to the plate anyway to save the country from the Clintons. Thank God he did. He also knew that a Hillary Presidency would mean a Liberal rubber stamp Supreme Court for at least the next 20 years.

I see him as a straight talking New Yorker who loves to mix it up. He doesn't want to take the high road, he wants to get in your face. That's him. He's real. Could I do with less Tweets? Sure. I don't read them but Jesus Christ you Liberals appear to spend every waking moment dissecting every syllable.

I suggest you don't take every thing he says or writes literally. Focus on the bigger picture of what he is trying to do. For example, the "Racist Rhetoric" he used about building the wall, and Mexico sending their criminals and Rapists has proven to be extremely effective in reducing illegals attempting to cross. They are down nearly 75% which is a huge help for our border agents, DEA, and Police. So in a sense Trump built a pretty good wall with words alone. Was he nice? No. Was he effective. Oh yes.

I'll take effective over nice in my President.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Liberals insist on taking him absolutely literally, even though they never hold their own politicians to the same standard.

Is it too much to ask an executive, most especially a POTUS or would-be one, to always say things unequivocally and to say only things that, given the information available at the time, are accurate, or at least plausible and probable?

Trump rarely does either of those things when he speaks. Just this past week, he told Mrs. Johnson her husband "knew what he was getting into" and then denied saying it. Then Kelly said, well, yes, Trump did indeed say exactly that. There is no way to take a statement that says "I didn't say 'such and such'" other than literally. One either did say that or one did not.

Would it have been too much for Trump on his own behalf to have said something to the effect of "I didn't mean it in the "whatever" sense of that phrase?" No, it wouldn't, yet doing something that simple is not what Trump did. He flat out lied about having uttered the words. I mean, really. What kind of grown man refuses to own the words that come out his mouth?

 

[MACAULAY]

Liberals insist on taking him absolutely literally, even though they never hold their own politicians to the same standard.

Is it too much to ask an executive, most especially a POTUS or would-be one, to always say things unequivocally and to say only things that, given the information available at the time, are accurate, or at least plausible and probable?

Trump rarely does either of those things when he speaks. Just this past week, he told Mrs. Johnson her husband "knew what he was getting into" and then denied saying it. Then Kelly said, well, yes, Trump did indeed say exactly that. There is no way to take a statement that says "I didn't say 'such and such'" other than literally. One either did say that or one did not.

Would it have been too much for Trump on his own behalf to have said something to the effect of "I didn't mean it in the "whatever" sense of that phrase?" No, it wouldn't, yet doing something that simple is not what Trump did. He flat out lied about having uttered the words. I mean, really. What kind of grown man refuses to own the words that come out his mouth?

-------------------

You will get to keep your own doctor.

You will get to keep your own health insurance plan.

Your premiums will go down by an average of $2500 per family.

________________

 

[usmbguest5318]

Liberals insist on taking him absolutely literally, even though they never hold their own politicians to the same standard.

Is it too much to ask an executive, most especially a POTUS or would-be one, to always say things unequivocally and to say only things that, given the information available at the time, are accurate, or at least plausible and probable?

Trump rarely does either of those things when he speaks. Just this past week, he told Mrs. Johnson her husband "knew what he was getting into" and then denied saying it. Then Kelly said, well, yes, Trump did indeed say exactly that. There is no way to take a statement that says "I didn't say 'such and such'" other than literally. One either did say that or one did not.

Would it have been too much for Trump on his own behalf to have said something to the effect of "I didn't mean it in the "whatever" sense of that phrase?" No, it wouldn't, yet doing something that simple is not what Trump did. He flat out lied about having uttered the words. I mean, really. What kind of grown man refuses to own the words that come out his mouth?

-------------------

You will get to keep your own doctor.

You will get to keep your own health insurance plan.

Your premiums will go down by an average of $2500 per family.

________________

You clearly missed the first sentence in the post.

Is it too much to ask an executive, most especially a POTUS or would-be one, to always say things unequivocally and to say only things that, given the information available at the time, are accurate, or at least plausible and probable?

 

[Lastamender]

I get soo sick of silly things Trump says.

In a way I hope he is an evil genius purposely misdirecting us from whatever he is not accomplishing by distracting us with a series of inflammatory vague quotes which can be proven or disproven by depending on where you set the goal posts.

Then again I fear we have elected a man who can't keep his mouth shut. I feel qualified to recognize a narcissistic sociopath who like the sound of his own voice .

Actions speak louder than words so perhaps we should ignore his words and focus on the legislative accomplishments and Executive Orders? You can talk about banning this or that all day long but if you do nothing about it there is no change.

Or are the words a big part of it? Sometime speeches are important to motivate people or give the idea the continuing recovery from the great recession is your doing. To be fair, providing people with faith in a resurgence and boosting morale IS important.

I suggest you don't worry about it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I view Donald Trump in a totally different light. I see a man who had everything, who knew that the Presidency would be a shit storm, and he stepped up to the plate anyway to save the country from the Clintons. Thank God he did. He also knew that a Hillary Presidency would mean a Liberal rubber stamp Supreme Court for at least the next 20 years.

I see him as a straight talking New Yorker who loves to mix it up. He doesn't want to take the high road, he wants to get in your face. That's him. He's real. Could I do with less Tweets? Sure. I don't read them but Jesus Christ you Liberals appear to spend every waking moment dissecting every syllable.

I suggest you don't take every thing he says or writes literally. Focus on the bigger picture of what he is trying to do. For example, the "Racist Rhetoric" he used about building the wall, and Mexico sending their criminals and Rapists has proven to be extremely effective in reducing illegals attempting to cross. They are down nearly 75% which is a huge help for our border agents, DEA, and Police. So in a sense Trump built a pretty good wall with words alone. Was he nice? No. Was he effective. Oh yes.

I'll take effective over nice in my President.

Focus on the bigger picture of what he is trying to do. For example, the "Racist Rhetoric" he used about building the wall, and Mexico sending their criminals and Rapists has proven to be extremely effective in reducing illegals attempting to cross. They are down nearly 75% which is a huge help for our border agents, DEA, and Police.

Here's the bigger picture in that. If his racist rhetoric is so effective, why spend billions on a wall? Surely there are better present uses of that money, particularly when even the immigration expert whom conservatives love to quote has said repeatedly that the net impact of immigrants' presence in the U.S. is positive not negative. It's not a huge sum, but it is not a net drain.

I shared this information earlier this year, but it seems it needs to be reiterated.

According to publications from the conservative Center for Immigration Studies and the liberal Migration Policy Institute, illegal immigration yields a very small but nonetheless positive impact on the U.S. economy. Read the documents you'll find linked in the preceding sentence and you'll find the following:

• Illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion. This “contribution” to the economy does not measure the net benefit to natives.
• The surplus from illegal immigration, or the net gain to US workers and employers exclusive of any labor income paid to the unauthorized immigrants themselves, is approximately 0.03 percent of US GDP.
  
  [Given that GDP is ~$18.57T, that amounts to about five and a half billion that illegal immigrants contribute to (not reduce) the U.S.' GDP bottom line.]
• The immigration surplus or benefit to natives created by illegal immigrants is estimated at around $9 billion a year or 0.06 percent of GDP -- six one-hundredths of 1 percent.
  
  [The $9B sum cited is from when the source articles were written. Since then GDP has risen. The corresponding figure today is ~$11.1B.]
• Although the net benefits to natives from illegal immigrants are small, there is a sizable redistribution effect. Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.

GDP is itself a net sum; thus it is either increased or decreased by "whatever," in this case illegal immigration.

You'll find at the links in this post -- Liberal & Conservative Think Tanks Agree on The Net Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration -- references beyond those linked above.

 

[MarathonMike]

How can you accurately measure illegal immigration's effect on net GDP? Do we some means of tracking how much money they send back to Mexico? How especially since so many of them deal in cash? There are so many impossible to track scenarios that have huge impacts on our economy such as an illegal that comes across the border and gives birth to a premature baby. Are those costs captured in this study? All these institute studies are so full of holes, yet they are touted as irrefutable "expert analysis". I beg to differ.

 

[Toronado3800]

Liberals insist on taking him absolutely literally, even though they never hold their own politicians to the same standard.

Is it too much to ask an executive, most especially a POTUS or would-be one, to always say things unequivocally and to say only things that, given the information available at the time, are accurate, or at least plausible and probable?

Trump rarely does either of those things when he speaks. Just this past week, he told Mrs. Johnson her husband "knew what he was getting into" and then denied saying it. Then Kelly said, well, yes, Trump did indeed say exactly that. There is no way to take a statement that says "I didn't say 'such and such'" other than literally. One either did say that or one did not.

Would it have been too much for Trump on his own behalf to have said something to the effect of "I didn't mean it in the "whatever" sense of that phrase?" No, it wouldn't, yet doing something that simple is not what Trump did. He flat out lied about having uttered the words. I mean, really. What kind of grown man refuses to own the words that come out his mouth?

-------------------

You will get to keep your own doctor.

You will get to keep your own health insurance plan.

Your premiums will go down by an average of $2500 per family.

________________

I did

I did

They did for my poor neighbor after the tax rebate.

Still Obamacare rides the unconstitutional line....then again Presidents have the power to declare war so no republicans are allowed to complain.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Liberals insist on taking him absolutely literally, even though they never hold their own politicians to the same standard.

Is it too much to ask an executive, most especially a POTUS or would-be one, to always say things unequivocally and to say only things that, given the information available at the time, are accurate, or at least plausible and probable?

Trump rarely does either of those things when he speaks. Just this past week, he told Mrs. Johnson her husband "knew what he was getting into" and then denied saying it. Then Kelly said, well, yes, Trump did indeed say exactly that. There is no way to take a statement that says "I didn't say 'such and such'" other than literally. One either did say that or one did not.

Would it have been too much for Trump on his own behalf to have said something to the effect of "I didn't mean it in the "whatever" sense of that phrase?" No, it wouldn't, yet doing something that simple is not what Trump did. He flat out lied about having uttered the words. I mean, really. What kind of grown man refuses to own the words that come out his mouth?

-------------------

You will get to keep your own doctor.

You will get to keep your own health insurance plan.

Your premiums will go down by an average of $2500 per family.

________________

I did

I did

They did for my poor neighbor after the tax rebate.

Still Obamacare rides the unconstitutional line....then again Presidents have the power to declare war so no republicans are allowed to complain.

Presidents have the power to declare war

Some might, but American Presidents do not.

 

[2aguy]

I view Donald Trump in a totally different light. I see a man who had everything, who knew that the Presidency would be a shit storm, and he stepped up to the plate anyway to save the country from the Clintons. Thank God he did. He also knew that a Hillary Presidency would mean a Liberal rubber stamp Supreme Court for at least the next 20 years.

I see him as a straight talking New Yorker who loves to mix it up. He doesn't want to take the high road, he wants to get in your face. That's him. He's real. Could I do with less Tweets? Sure. I don't read them but Jesus Christ you Liberals appear to spend every waking moment dissecting every syllable.

I suggest you don't take every thing he says or writes literally. Focus on the bigger picture of what he is trying to do. For example, the "Racist Rhetoric" he used about building the wall, and Mexico sending their criminals and Rapists has proven to be extremely effective in reducing illegals attempting to cross. They are down nearly 75% which is a huge help for our border agents, DEA, and Police. So in a sense Trump built a pretty good wall with words alone. Was he nice? No. Was he effective. Oh yes.

I'll take effective over nice in my President.

Excellent...thank you.

A female reporter stated the truth about Trump....
Here is the story....and the difference between left wing haters, and conservatives who saw him as the last chance to stop the clintons....

Taking Trump Seriously, Not Literally

It’s a familiar split. When he makes claims like this, the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.

 

[2aguy]

Partial Response:

1) The O. P has a long difficult education before him, with regard to the topic he has assigned himself. It will be particularly hard because he doesn't want to hear the truth about Don Trump. He wants to misunderstand him, because he wants to hate him.

2) I don't have the time or inclination, or even the ability, to educate anyone who doesn't want to learn...who doesn't want to hear anything said on Trump's behalf.

3) So, I will just make one point and give one example.

The point is: Liberals insist on taking him absolutely literally, even though they never hold their own politicians to the same standard.

The example is: I will build a great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for it.

Liberals knew Mexico would never just up and write a check for the wall, and so that is exactly what they (including the O. P., I expect) is what they pretended he meant.

Conservatives, on the other hand, also knew Mexico would never just up and write a check for the wall, but they were so delighted that an American Presidential Candidate was willing to commit to doing his very best to STOPPING the Invasion of America by Mexico...actually by the dregs of Mexican Society---as the Rich and Middle Class; the successful people in Mexico---stay where they are.

We understood that; you obviously did not.

Also, Conservatives had sense enough to understand Mexico would never just up and write a check for the wall, but they also understood that stopping the Invasion would bring such benefits to America that Mexico would essentially be paying for the wall.

For example, a down payment was made on Mexico paying indirectly for the Wall, right after Trump was elected---when FORD announce it would built its newest plant in the USA and not in Mexico as previously planned when the Marxist Obama was President.

A down payment was made when illegal immigration, the Invasion that Obama invited, slowed way way down....meaning Mexico had to pay for more of its dregs, and the U.S. A had to pay for less and less of them. The lighter the burden on social services, like welfare, and like teachers who have to teach Spanish instead of the national language--English, the better. Just two examples.

We understand this; you obviously do not.

If you can learn from this example....which is unlikely because you obviously wish to be willingly blind....then you will be better prepared yo know what Trump is talking about in the future.

Excellent...thanks.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I get soo sick of silly things Trump says.

In a way I hope he is an evil genius purposely misdirecting us from whatever he is not accomplishing by distracting us with a series of inflammatory vague quotes which can be proven or disproven by depending on where you set the goal posts.

Then again I fear we have elected a man who can't keep his mouth shut. I feel qualified to recognize a narcissistic sociopath who like the sound of his own voice .

Actions speak louder than words so perhaps we should ignore his words and focus on the legislative accomplishments and Executive Orders? You can talk about banning this or that all day long but if you do nothing about it there is no change.

Or are the words a big part of it? Sometime speeches are important to motivate people or give the idea the continuing recovery from the great recession is your doing. To be fair, providing people with faith in a resurgence and boosting morale IS important.

the only thing I would take seriously from trump are; property investments and who to not hire as a makeup artist.

 

[2aguy]

I view Donald Trump in a totally different light. I see a man who had everything, who knew that the Presidency would be a shit storm, and he stepped up to the plate anyway to save the country from the Clintons. Thank God he did. He also knew that a Hillary Presidency would mean a Liberal rubber stamp Supreme Court for at least the next 20 years.

I see him as a straight talking New Yorker who loves to mix it up. He doesn't want to take the high road, he wants to get in your face. That's him. He's real. Could I do with less Tweets? Sure. I don't read them but Jesus Christ you Liberals appear to spend every waking moment dissecting every syllable.

I suggest you don't take every thing he says or writes literally. Focus on the bigger picture of what he is trying to do. For example, the "Racist Rhetoric" he used about building the wall, and Mexico sending their criminals and Rapists has proven to be extremely effective in reducing illegals attempting to cross. They are down nearly 75% which is a huge help for our border agents, DEA, and Police. So in a sense Trump built a pretty good wall with words alone. Was he nice? No. Was he effective. Oh yes.

I'll take effective over nice in my President.

Focus on the bigger picture of what he is trying to do. For example, the "Racist Rhetoric" he used about building the wall, and Mexico sending their criminals and Rapists has proven to be extremely effective in reducing illegals attempting to cross. They are down nearly 75% which is a huge help for our border agents, DEA, and Police.

Here's the bigger picture in that. If his racist rhetoric is so effective, why spend billions on a wall? Surely there are better present uses of that money, particularly when even the immigration expert whom conservatives love to quote has said repeatedly that the net impact of immigrants' presence in the U.S. is positive not negative. It's not a huge sum, but it is not a net drain.

I shared this information earlier this year, but it seems it needs to be reiterated.

According to publications from the conservative Center for Immigration Studies and the liberal Migration Policy Institute, illegal immigration yields a very small but nonetheless positive impact on the U.S. economy. Read the documents you'll find linked in the preceding sentence and you'll find the following:

• Illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion. This “contribution” to the economy does not measure the net benefit to natives.
• The surplus from illegal immigration, or the net gain to US workers and employers exclusive of any labor income paid to the unauthorized immigrants themselves, is approximately 0.03 percent of US GDP.
  
  [Given that GDP is ~$18.57T, that amounts to about five and a half billion that illegal immigrants contribute to (not reduce) the U.S.' GDP bottom line.]
• The immigration surplus or benefit to natives created by illegal immigrants is estimated at around $9 billion a year or 0.06 percent of GDP -- six one-hundredths of 1 percent.
  
  [The $9B sum cited is from when the source articles were written. Since then GDP has risen. The corresponding figure today is ~$11.1B.]
• Although the net benefits to natives from illegal immigrants are small, there is a sizable redistribution effect. Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.

GDP is itself a net sum; thus it is either increased or decreased by "whatever," in this case illegal immigration.

You'll find at the links in this post -- Liberal & Conservative Think Tanks Agree on The Net Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration -- references beyond those linked above.

It isn't racist. But keep calling him a racist, and his supporters as you do it......and when 2020 comes around, we will enjoy your liberal tears with the rest of the tears of left wing, Anti-American democrats.

 

[alang1216]

I get soo sick of silly things Trump says.

In a way I hope he is an evil genius purposely misdirecting us from whatever he is not accomplishing by distracting us with a series of inflammatory vague quotes which can be proven or disproven by depending on where you set the goal posts.

Then again I fear we have elected a man who can't keep his mouth shut. I feel qualified to recognize a narcissistic sociopath who like the sound of his own voice .

Actions speak louder than words so perhaps we should ignore his words and focus on the legislative accomplishments and Executive Orders? You can talk about banning this or that all day long but if you do nothing about it there is no change.

Or are the words a big part of it? Sometime speeches are important to motivate people or give the idea the continuing recovery from the great recession is your doing. To be fair, providing people with faith in a resurgence and boosting morale IS important.

I don't believe anything Trump has to say since he will say anything. Like a good salesman, he'll tell you what you want to hear. If it isn't quite 100% true well, caveat emptor. I think he wanted to be president to prove he could do it, in fact he is still running for president. He obviously enjoys that more than the grind of governing. He would be just as comfortable running as a Dem since he has no ideology.