Saying that he "screws over individual people at times" really underplays that part of his history. There's Trump U, there's the countless cases of him not paying people who've rendered him services, there's a history of him taking personal responsibility for every positive accomplishment he's made but him blaming all his failures on other people. Of course, there's the instances where 4 of his businesses filed for bankruptcy.

Not to mention his isn't anything sort of a vast accomplishment or rags to riches story. He inherited a grand fortune and turned it into a larger grand fortune (only arguably, nobody actually knows what he's worth. He's just a self proclaimed billionaire, there's no real evidence of it).

Clinton has a history of actually pushing boundaries, especially in her younger years. In school, and as a lawyer, she had a wide array of accomplishments. She was a very proactive first lady and one of the most productive first ladies in American history, and of course there is evidence of serious corruption especially once she became a congresswoman for New York and Secretary of State.

With Hillary Clinton, we know from her history that she fights for the American people - only absolutely secondary to her donors and big money interests, but there is still a history of it there.

Trump on the other hand, only has a history of fighting for Trump. There's no history of him ever going out of his way to serve the people (the fact that he rails against trade deals even though he outsources tons of jobs comes to mind).


The point of what I said was that his plans are so vague we don't even know what his values are or what he'd fight for. They're so secret and vague it's like his entire candidacy is a rogue entity. Maybe that works in business, but that should NOT be something the American people should be comfortable voting for. I mean, c'mon.

i.e. (not an actual quote, just an example)

"What is this candidacy about?"

"Well, I'm going to make America great again."

"And how are you going to do that? What economic, social and foreign stances are you taking to accomplish that?"

"Look I'm just going to make America great again."


We simply don't know what he's about. He might push to half military spending and he privatize the VA, or he might push to double military spending and pour money into the VA, we just don't know.


Yeah, you're mistaken :<



You can see that he actually implied that the idea was to leverage the (lives of) family members in order to... idk, detain the terrorists? Manipulate them into a position where you can take them out? Of course those last bits are are speculation, but he's probably meaning to go somewhere along those lines with them.

Although, I have to give props on the drone strike thing, that slips the mind of a lot of people. I personally think specifically targeting unaffiliated civilians is worse by virtue than not minding hitting civilians as collateral, but Trump hasn't actually said anything about the drone program that I've heard of anyway. If he's saying obscene things like "target [civilians]" than I can't imagine he's against the drone program at all

This is actually very false and isn't at all supported by the results of our actions in the region. History shows that every time we get more and more involved in the region, every time we take out civilians and bomb hospitals w/e, people turn around and call us their enemy. Obviously, if we're killing their family, their neighbors, we basically ARE their enemies.

These kinds of actions in the middle east just make us lose more and more potential allies and inflate the threat against the US.


Journalism right now obviously isn't perfect (wikileaks collaborations between DNC and media to spin narratives about Bernie Sanders comes to mind), but violating the first amendment to give them greater accountability isn't the answer. That's a slippery slope that ultimately leaves the powerful with greater ability to control the media through fear. (Imagine if a news organization ran a story about some high caliber politician with a lot of influence - that politician could punish that news organization through lawsuits to no end and would crush any massive resistance against them)

Plus, it's a little harsh to say they outright lie, which is just the issue with holding them accountable. Most often they use one side or one aspect of the story to twist a narrative, which isn't lying per se but is instead simply being disingenuous. That makes it even scarier to imagine that Trump wants to punish them through suits, because that's an EXTREMELY blurry line.


I think Milo can put out some good quotes sometimes about free speech etc. etc. and I really respect that aspect about him, but I believe he's dead wrong when he says that Trump is the ideal defender of free speech or the final bastion of respectable culture or something like that.

Like I mentioned in my last post and covered your response to earlier in this one, Trump's history and rhetoric shows that he HATES free speech. He's one of the biggest threats to the 1st amendments we've ever faces, where he'll sue people who even make JOKES about him, and then says that we should open up the libel laws to potentially allow him to sue MORE people who say bad things about him. That's pretty counter to Milo's idea that Trump is a champion of free speech who says whatever he wants without worrying about PC (plus, even that is giving him way too much credit. His comments on the judge handling his Trump U case make it sound like he's actually racist. The election of a possible racist could potentially create an even stronger PC movement as a reactionary type response against him.

Either way, this isn't just an election about culture. Culture exists as a phenomenon on its own, it isn't decided by elections or by people who try to tell you "this is our culture now."

Not only that, but if Trump's (few) policies actually get passed, it could mean terrible things for the country, our international standing, and our current way of living.


Have you looked at the rates of labor participation for every other demographic in the country? They're totally outclassed by the labor participation rate of illegals.


"It's just potentially 25% of the agricultural industry being deported, there's no way that could be a bad thing. People wanting to join the labor force will come out of the woodwork anyway and those jobs will be quickly filled"

Try harder, this isn't good trolling.

The very idea of people not being in the labor force is that they AREN'T LOOKING TO FILL JOBS. So when illegals make up 9% of the labor force in some states, there are a lot of jobs there that won't get filled again any time soon if those illegals disappear.

In industries like agriculture, where the shelf life of products is fairly short and everybody needs to utilize the products of the industry, the potential impact of a supply shock would effect every household in the area. If (say) only 10% of the jobs just lost in the industry simply can't get refilled, then that's a significant permanent effect on that industry and the American people.


Any industries can charge them below the minimum According to the article you link in your last post, more and more illegals are working the same management and service jobs whites prevalently are, so they must be a decently skilled population. Kinda leads you to believe the advantage to utilizing illegal immigrants is simply that illegal immigrants are willing to work jobs Americans aren't.


Again, try harder.

The economic positives of these illegal immigrants far outweighs the negatives currently. The only potential downside I can see, the virtue of their illegal'ness aside, is that they commit crimes at far higher rates than the rest of the population. So, every one of your scenarios is just dumb.

Yes, we should obviously think of a better solution before we deport 5% of our workforce and risk economic consequences to core industries like agriculture that we may not be able to quickly fix.

Luckily, that's exactly what it sounds like Hillary Clinton wants to do.


I'll concede I should have pinpointed the industries they're major contributors to, but the sidestep from industrial productivity (production of real assets, implicit economic effects) to economic stimulus is misleading and disingenuous.

Think about what happens if a quarter of labor in agriculture kicks the bucket and some supply shock does occur. That's a larger proportion of citizens' paycheck going to groceries and less to other things, in a time when people already have stagnating wages and incomes.


10 trillion eh?

Again, the sidestep from the real assets they contribute to that also have economic repercussions to the financial stimulus tied with their households.


There's no benefit in hiring them over citizens in that case, but again, their significantly higher rate of labor force participation and propensity to manual labor jobs suggests they're harder working and more willing to work and work more physically stressful jobs that Americans are apparently above.


It's a little subjective and value based to say we should lower the barrier for citizenship, and I'd much rather you call me out on that than try to be cheeky about "what's wrong with having to learn a little history."



hey is this about the size of trump's wall or is his supposed to be a little bigger