Generic Trump & Hillary thread seeing as the other 2 threads were locked.

FDR? He is going to go FDR on America?! How left democrat is that? Can't even be called a RINO if you go with FDR policies, that is pure undiluted democrat.

Whoa, whoa... apologies. Bad writing on my part I assume. That's not at all what I meant to say. Let me try again.

I'm not really into politics as I'm a bit reluctant to slap a label on myself. I'd rather have wiggle room to deal with every single issue separately and mix & match "ideologies" (for lack of a better word). And then there's historical events that need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Right now, for example, I think we've needed some kind of New Deal after the Crash of 2008.

However there's at least one label I wouldn't mind "owning" and that's:
Anti-Corporatocracy

I don't want to live in a Robocop/SnowCrash/Aliens (Cameron) style dystopia. It's the reason I keep banging on about "psychopaths". And why I relentlessly call neolibs & neocons a HIGHLY dangerous misnomer. There just psychos being psycho. They don't qualify as an "ideology".

Now back to Trump. I wasn't implying Trump would go all FDR. I was trying to say that that's what I want to see somebody/anybody do. Trade Deals, reversing Citizens United, and re-regulating Wall Street are the 3 things at the top of my wishlist.

1)Trump killed the TPP. I didn't think he'd come through on that promise.
2)If Trump said anything about reversing CU, I missed it. I don't think he will.
3)Trump DID say he'd put Wall Street in it's place. Again, I seriously doubt he will. So no, I don't think Trump will go all FDR on us.

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."
-FDR

Well that's my "serious" response to your comment anyway. Below will be the smart*ss version. :)

FDR? He is going to go FDR on America?! How left democrat is that? Can't even be called a RINO if you go with FDR policies, that is pure undiluted democrat.

RINO? He's cozying up to Russia!

He's obviously a Pinko ;)

BTW it wasn't lost on me that you were alluding to one of your favorite pet peeves:

Trump was a Democrat.

Well I don't know about that. He's certainly a flip-flopper so I bet there was a point in time where he really was.

- - - -

Serious mind-f* of an election though.

Trump - insurgent candidate - takes over GOP and wins by becoming the working class candidate.

Meanwhile the Dems turned into the New Republicans and had their a** handed to them.

Historic election indeed.

All the threads are getting locked!

I'm seeing quite a few progressive minds independently come to a consensus on a few players:

Aside from the obvious Sanders & Warren, two more names keep popping up which I've never heard 'till very recently:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Turner

One more name keeps popping up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ellison

Trump was a Democrat.

So was Reagan. Who was also an 'outsider' to the Republican Establishment.

I think the difference here is that Reagan quit the Democratic party in 1962, almost two decades before being elected president.
In 1964 he gave a speech to support Goldwater and became a Republican Governor in 1966.
He then ran for president on the Republican ticket in 1968 and 1976 before finally being elected in 1980.
Hardly a "outsider" to the Republican Establishment.

A "New York" wedding ..... We have the same putter!

Trump was a Democrat.

So was Reagan. Who was also an 'outsider' to the Republican Establishment.

I think the difference here is that Reagan quit the Democratic party in 1962, almost two decades before being elected president.
In 1964 he gave a speech to support Goldwater and became a Republican Governor in 1966.
He then ran for president on the Republican ticket in 1968 and 1976 before finally being elected in 1980.
Hardly a "outsider" to the Republican Establishment.

A "New York" wedding ..... We have the same putter!

Don't forget his donations to her Presidential, Senate and Foundation, in the six figures.

---

Illegal Aliens!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKDBAgTBsOA#t=8m12s

We have more illegal aliens than you have citizens in Sweden. Maybe double that. They are a challenge for us.

---

...

Hope to have time to comment after work, ladies and gents.

Trump transition team in disarray after top adviser 'purged'

Donald Trump is about to control the most powerful surveillance machine in history

Our Brexit team is in chaos. Was it "Brexit times ten", or "Brexit on steroids" how Trump described his win?

Hope to have time to comment after work, ladies and gents.

Trump transition team in disarray after top adviser 'purged'

Are you seriously quoting the Gardian who is referencing New York Times who is quoting The Washington Post?
All this to compare getting rid of an advisor (Cristy) and his cronies who clearly will be unable to to the job of a transition team, to a Joseph Stalin purge that sent tens of thousands to die in Siberian Gulag's.
Now that's some unbiased reporting work!
They would be much better served to report on actual problems than to just spew out incendiary remarks like "Stalinesque Purge".
But maybe that kind of 'journalism' is what the readers and quoters of those papers prefer to read.

As Mike Rogers was/is a TV presenter, maybe Trump told him "There's only room for 1 TV personality here & it's not you" :-)

Mike Rogers presented a 6 part TV series "Declassified: Untold stories of American spies"

Sirus B

That makes more sense, given what we think we know about Trump.
I can just hear the main interview question; "Are you now, or have you ever been a TV personality?"
2nd question: "How can we prove that the Chinese are faking this Climate Change thingy?

lol.

Wouldn't be surprised if it was something along those lines.

Mike Rogers was former US Army, FBI & Congressman.

While a Congressman, he was Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

His abrupt departure should be raising questions.

We have more illegal aliens than you have citizens in Sweden. Maybe double that. They are a challenge for us.

It's a challenge to many countries today.
You have about the same amount of unauthorized immigrant population in the U.S as there are Swedish citizens.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/
According to Trump between 2 and 3 million out of 11 million they also are criminal.
Does it make sense?

It's a challenge to many countries today.
You have about the same amount of unauthorized immigrant population in the U.S as there are Swedish citizens.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/
According to Trump between 2 and 3 million out of 11 million they also are criminal.
Does it make sense?

Those figures are, of coarse, estimates and best guesses though I doubt if they are far off.
However, very few people make a difference between Mexico and any other Latin speaking Central or South American country when it comes to their personal objection to Illegal Imigration.
So when Pew Research says 'only' 54% are Mexicans, that does not reflect what people think they see. They tend to lump all latins border jumping together.
I would say that Trump's guess at 2-3 million of the total being criminal is almost believable.
We have a huge influx of drugs here and until the laws change to legalize and educate, then there is Criminal involvement.
Also, when someone is here without work visa, etc., it must be VERY difficult to live and earn a living, thereby probably tempted to involve themselves in criminal enterprises just to make money to live.

It's a challenge to many countries today.
You have about the same amount of unauthorized immigrant population in the U.S as there are Swedish citizens.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/
According to Trump between 2 and 3 million out of 11 million they also are criminal.
Does it make sense?

Those figures are, of coarse, estimates and best guesses though I doubt if they are far off.
However, very few people make a difference between Mexico and any other Latin speaking Central or South American country when it comes to their personal objection to Illegal Imigration.
So when Pew Research says 'only' 54% are Mexicans, that does not reflect what people think they see. They tend to lump all latins border jumping together.
I would say that Trump's guess at 2-3 million of the total being criminal is almost believable.
We have a huge influx of drugs here and until the laws change to legalize and educate, then there is Criminal involvement.
Also, when someone is here without work visa, etc., it must be VERY difficult to live and earn a living, thereby probably tempted to involve themselves in criminal enterprises just to make money to live.

Some of that makes sense, but there is also the extreme fear of drawing attention of the law to you while you are here without authorization. Those that were criminals before they crossed will remain criminals. Those that are here for a job are going to stay clean. The other fact that is omitted is the length of stay. Many of the job seekers come only for a couple of years to get enough to buy property or a business back home.

Now for some data: http://openborders.info/hispanic-crime-and-illegal-immigration-in-the-united-states/

Incarceration rate for foreign born: 0.86%, i.e. about a quarter of that for the US born. (non-Hispanic whites 0.57%, non-Hispanic blacks 2.47%, Hispanics ranges from 0.2% to 2.2% based on country of origin, if we exclude Puerto Ricans, who are US citizens, Asians ranges from 0.1% to 0.9%). Note the interesting fact that all foreign born ethnicities, including blacks, have lower crime rates than the average for US natives.

So Trump is smoking some good stuff when he comes up with his numbers.

---

I would say that Trump's guess at 2-3 million of the total being criminal is almost believable.
We have a huge influx of drugs here and until the laws change to legalize and educate, then there is Criminal involvement.
Also, when someone is here without work visa, etc., it must be VERY difficult to live and earn a living, thereby probably tempted to involve themselves in criminal enterprises just to make money to live.

Wouldn't that mean a higher crime rate?
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/16/voters-perceptions-of-crime-continue-to-conflict-with-reality/

Official government crime statistics paint a strikingly different picture. Between 2008 and 2015 (the most recent year for which data are available), U.S. violent crime and property crime rates fell 19% and 23%, respectively, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, which tallies serious crimes reported to police in more than 18,000 jurisdictions around the nation.

Xenophobia does not recognize logic.

---

Thanks for the further links to Gary and Jann.
Very good figures to mull over if one can assume that incarceration rates are equal to criminal involvement. How else to gauge it?

I truely can't imagine what it must be like to work illegally.
There must be an impoossible dark cloud hanging over you at all times.
Then if you are put in a position that you are taken advantage of and/or mistreated, that's even worse. That's what makes me assume it must be difficult to resist the easy money of criminal activity. (Not murder and property crimes.)

betreger
I'm not Xenophobic. I was attempting to explain what I think was the crux of the question in the first link that Jann gave in Message 1830925.
Thanks just the same.