Trumpism

[Sbane]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/06/25/trumps_racial_firebombs_weaken_us.html

Interesting article that I think is relevant here. Trump could have seized the moment to fix the immigration system but he blew it with his idiotic, racist rhetoric. And this is written by a right wing guy.....

[SillyAmerican]

Immigrants are most certainly taking jobs that would otherwise be done by Americans. This is not a lie. Even supporters of immigration must realize this on some level. It's not as if we didn't allow immigration, there wouldn't be super markets or restaurants.

Immigration as a whole is good for America. That doesn't mean there aren't winners and losers. And it's not just the 1% that benefits. It also helps those who work white collar jobs and can get cheaper meals at restaurants, cheaper stays at hotels, cheaper prices at supermarkets etc. Without immigrants the standard of living of most Americans would fall.

No argument with these statements. However, you fail to distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, and it's a very important distinction. Frankly, I can't understand why people would argue against enforcing our immigration laws. If you don't like those laws, change them. If you'd prefer letting folks come into the country to work, propose a structured way of allowing that to happen. But please, please don't just ignore certain laws that are on the books because, well, "nobody" wants them to be enforced, because somebody thinks them to be a good idea and wants them to be enforced (otherwise they wouldn't be on the books).

There is only one issue there. American immigration policy is very reticent to allow any working class immigrants to come into the US, which is why you have the illegal immigrant situation you see today. It would be better if we could allow these people to come through legal channels but the problem is that it is not politically feasible to do so. People may be ok with a Chinsese businessman or an Indian IT dude coming in, but they balk when you ask if it is ok if a Mexican farmworker comes in as well. How do you fix the immigration system in a rational way that allows people to come in to do jobs no one else will do? And that way one can stop the excesses of illegal immigration while preserving the benefits. I don't see how that is politically possible though in an environment where racists like Trump are wining the nomination of one of the two established parties of America.

Why do you say that it is not politically feasible to create a legal channel to allow working class immigrants to come to the US? And if you're right, does that fact provide enough justification for ignoring the law? If that's what you're suggesting, I must strongly disagree. A good number of the problems we're facing appear to be a result of people wanting to ignore certain laws. You don't like the immigration services policing your city? Well, make it a "sanctuary city". Don't think much of federal drug laws pertaining to marijuana possession and distribution? If you're the President, make it the policy of your administration not to enforce those laws. Don't appreciate the criticism directed towards your presidency that's coming from specific groups? Use the Justice Department and the IRS to punish those groups.

Yes it's sad, but that's where we are...

[muon2]

Excellent points.  This year should may turn out very good!

Here's a quote from Charles Murray's "Trump's America" about Trump's supporters that bears highlighting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are many consequences of Trumpism that will remain with us.  One of them is the end of the GOP nominating process being a contest of "Who's the purest conservative?".  Here you have a major constituency within the GOP that is demanding that the government act on their behalf.  These people have been Republicans and voted Republican forever; they weren't noticed because they were ignored and crapped on.  Until the day, that is, where a turd hit them in the eye and they woke up.  Our politics IS better for this; it's the end of the "Mr. Conservative" beauty contest that would have dismissed Trumpism as an anamoly and made Ted Cruz the "next in line".

The highlighted part is not apparent for readers over 50. Before Reagan the group in question were predominantly Dem. Clinton pulled a number of them back in the 1990's, but Perot got a chunk as well. After 2000, they have been more reliably Pub, especially outside central cities.

[Sbane]

Immigrants are most certainly taking jobs that would otherwise be done by Americans. This is not a lie. Even supporters of immigration must realize this on some level. It's not as if we didn't allow immigration, there wouldn't be super markets or restaurants.

Immigration as a whole is good for America. That doesn't mean there aren't winners and losers. And it's not just the 1% that benefits. It also helps those who work white collar jobs and can get cheaper meals at restaurants, cheaper stays at hotels, cheaper prices at supermarkets etc. Without immigrants the standard of living of most Americans would fall.

No argument with these statements. However, you fail to distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, and it's a very important distinction. Frankly, I can't understand why people would argue against enforcing our immigration laws. If you don't like those laws, change them. If you'd prefer letting folks come into the country to work, propose a structured way of allowing that to happen. But please, please don't just ignore certain laws that are on the books because, well, "nobody" wants them to be enforced, because somebody thinks them to be a good idea and wants them to be enforced (otherwise they wouldn't be on the books).

There is only one issue there. American immigration policy is very reticent to allow any working class immigrants to come into the US, which is why you have the illegal immigrant situation you see today. It would be better if we could allow these people to come through legal channels but the problem is that it is not politically feasible to do so. People may be ok with a Chinsese businessman or an Indian IT dude coming in, but they balk when you ask if it is ok if a Mexican farmworker comes in as well. How do you fix the immigration system in a rational way that allows people to come in to do jobs no one else will do? And that way one can stop the excesses of illegal immigration while preserving the benefits. I don't see how that is politically possible though in an environment where racists like Trump are wining the nomination of one of the two established parties of America.

Why do you say that it is not politically feasible to create a legal channel to allow working class immigrants to come to the US? And if you're right, does that fact provide enough justification for ignoring the law? If that's what you're suggesting, I must strongly disagree. A good number of the problems we're facing appear to be a result of people wanting to ignore certain laws. You don't like the immigration services policing your city? Well, make it a "sanctuary city". Don't think much of federal drug laws pertaining to marijuana possession and distribution? If you're the President, make it the policy of your administration not to enforce those laws. Don't appreciate the criticism directed towards your presidency that's coming from specific groups? Use the Justice Department and the IRS to punish those groups.

Yes it's sad, but that's where we are...

You don't understand the Republican party or it's base if you don't understand why it won't work. They may make an exception for certain minorities they deem desirable but Mexican laborers do not make that cut. That is why immigration reform that includes a legal path for working class workers is DOA. And we need these workers in certain areas like farmwork or landscaping and other tough jobs that don't pay well. I would obviously rather have these people come in legally but like I said, that is not feasible due to the political landscape. And I am sorry, but I don't want to pay $10 for a pound of strawberries. Of course the real result would be the end of American agriculture, as we end up importing all of our food.

[Indy Texas]

Immigrants are most certainly taking jobs that would otherwise be done by Americans. This is not a lie. Even supporters of immigration must realize this on some level. It's not as if we didn't allow immigration, there wouldn't be super markets or restaurants.

Immigration as a whole is good for America. That doesn't mean there aren't winners and losers. And it's not just the 1% that benefits. It also helps those who work white collar jobs and can get cheaper meals at restaurants, cheaper stays at hotels, cheaper prices at supermarkets etc. Without immigrants the standard of living of most Americans would fall.

No argument with these statements. However, you fail to distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, and it's a very important distinction. Frankly, I can't understand why people would argue against enforcing our immigration laws. If you don't like those laws, change them. If you'd prefer letting folks come into the country to work, propose a structured way of allowing that to happen. But please, please don't just ignore certain laws that are on the books because, well, "nobody" wants them to be enforced, because somebody thinks them to be a good idea and wants them to be enforced (otherwise they wouldn't be on the books).

There is only one issue there. American immigration policy is very reticent to allow any working class immigrants to come into the US, which is why you have the illegal immigrant situation you see today. It would be better if we could allow these people to come through legal channels but the problem is that it is not politically feasible to do so. People may be ok with a Chinsese businessman or an Indian IT dude coming in, but they balk when you ask if it is ok if a Mexican farmworker comes in as well. How do you fix the immigration system in a rational way that allows people to come in to do jobs no one else will do? And that way one can stop the excesses of illegal immigration while preserving the benefits. I don't see how that is politically possible though in an environment where racists like Trump are wining the nomination of one of the two established parties of America.

I don't know of any country that allows working class immigration (other than the EU's policies). It simply doesn't make sense to bring someone into a country who is, over a lifetime, going to be a using more dollars worth of public services than they will be paying in taxes.

An increasing number of Americans likely would take issue with the Indian H1B tech worker because that person might be taking their job.

Immigration is not charity - it's purely a question of, "What does this person have to offer? What can they do for us?" If they are going to be taking more out of society than they are contributing, it doesn't make sense to ask them to join the society.

[Indy Texas]

Immigrants are most certainly taking jobs that would otherwise be done by Americans. This is not a lie. Even supporters of immigration must realize this on some level. It's not as if we didn't allow immigration, there wouldn't be super markets or restaurants.

Immigration as a whole is good for America. That doesn't mean there aren't winners and losers. And it's not just the 1% that benefits. It also helps those who work white collar jobs and can get cheaper meals at restaurants, cheaper stays at hotels, cheaper prices at supermarkets etc. Without immigrants the standard of living of most Americans would fall.

No argument with these statements. However, you fail to distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, and it's a very important distinction. Frankly, I can't understand why people would argue against enforcing our immigration laws. If you don't like those laws, change them. If you'd prefer letting folks come into the country to work, propose a structured way of allowing that to happen. But please, please don't just ignore certain laws that are on the books because, well, "nobody" wants them to be enforced, because somebody thinks them to be a good idea and wants them to be enforced (otherwise they wouldn't be on the books).

There is only one issue there. American immigration policy is very reticent to allow any working class immigrants to come into the US, which is why you have the illegal immigrant situation you see today. It would be better if we could allow these people to come through legal channels but the problem is that it is not politically feasible to do so. People may be ok with a Chinsese businessman or an Indian IT dude coming in, but they balk when you ask if it is ok if a Mexican farmworker comes in as well. How do you fix the immigration system in a rational way that allows people to come in to do jobs no one else will do? And that way one can stop the excesses of illegal immigration while preserving the benefits. I don't see how that is politically possible though in an environment where racists like Trump are wining the nomination of one of the two established parties of America.

Why do you say that it is not politically feasible to create a legal channel to allow working class immigrants to come to the US? And if you're right, does that fact provide enough justification for ignoring the law? If that's what you're suggesting, I must strongly disagree. A good number of the problems we're facing appear to be a result of people wanting to ignore certain laws. You don't like the immigration services policing your city? Well, make it a "sanctuary city". Don't think much of federal drug laws pertaining to marijuana possession and distribution? If you're the President, make it the policy of your administration not to enforce those laws. Don't appreciate the criticism directed towards your presidency that's coming from specific groups? Use the Justice Department and the IRS to punish those groups.

Yes it's sad, but that's where we are...

You don't understand the Republican party or it's base if you don't understand why it won't work. They may make an exception for certain minorities they deem desirable but Mexican laborers do not make that cut. That is why immigration reform that includes a legal path for working class workers is DOA. And we need these workers in certain areas like farmwork or landscaping and other tough jobs that don't pay well. I would obviously rather have these people come in legally but like I said, that is not feasible due to the political landscape. And I am sorry, but I don't want to pay $10 for a pound of strawberries. Of course the real result would be the end of American agriculture, as we end up importing all of our food.

There are already programs to allow farmworkers temporary, seasonal residency, and have been since the 1950s. Farming is not as labor intensive as it used to be, and it will be getting less labor intensive in the coming decades. Japan has already rolled out robot farmhands to deal with the chronic labor shortage its aging, declining population has resulted in.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Trumpism is a movement by those who want the government to continue the social programs and who believe the lies that "immigrants are taking their jobs", have a xenophobic attitude towards Muslims and Hispanics, and have generally a centrist to conservative view on social issues. These are the people who have been reluctantly voting for the GOP for years only because of social issues. Trump has exposed the disconnect between them and the leadership of the GOP.

While I dislike defending TrumpMiller or his supporters at all, I suspect some of them are upset not because "immigrants are taking their jobs" but rather "corporations are shipping their jobs to Mexico/China/etc".

[Sbane]

Immigrants are most certainly taking jobs that would otherwise be done by Americans. This is not a lie. Even supporters of immigration must realize this on some level. It's not as if we didn't allow immigration, there wouldn't be super markets or restaurants.

Immigration as a whole is good for America. That doesn't mean there aren't winners and losers. And it's not just the 1% that benefits. It also helps those who work white collar jobs and can get cheaper meals at restaurants, cheaper stays at hotels, cheaper prices at supermarkets etc. Without immigrants the standard of living of most Americans would fall.

No argument with these statements. However, you fail to distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, and it's a very important distinction. Frankly, I can't understand why people would argue against enforcing our immigration laws. If you don't like those laws, change them. If you'd prefer letting folks come into the country to work, propose a structured way of allowing that to happen. But please, please don't just ignore certain laws that are on the books because, well, "nobody" wants them to be enforced, because somebody thinks them to be a good idea and wants them to be enforced (otherwise they wouldn't be on the books).

There is only one issue there. American immigration policy is very reticent to allow any working class immigrants to come into the US, which is why you have the illegal immigrant situation you see today. It would be better if we could allow these people to come through legal channels but the problem is that it is not politically feasible to do so. People may be ok with a Chinsese businessman or an Indian IT dude coming in, but they balk when you ask if it is ok if a Mexican farmworker comes in as well. How do you fix the immigration system in a rational way that allows people to come in to do jobs no one else will do? And that way one can stop the excesses of illegal immigration while preserving the benefits. I don't see how that is politically possible though in an environment where racists like Trump are wining the nomination of one of the two established parties of America.

I don't know of any country that allows working class immigration (other than the EU's policies). It simply doesn't make sense to bring someone into a country who is, over a lifetime, going to be a using more dollars worth of public services than they will be paying in taxes.

An increasing number of Americans likely would take issue with the Indian H1B tech worker because that person might be taking their job.

Immigration is not charity - it's purely a question of, "What does this person have to offer? What can they do for us?" If they are going to be taking more out of society than they are contributing, it doesn't make sense to ask them to join the society.

Increasing prices due to a lack of working class labor is also a tax.....These workers are providing a benefit that can't be quantified by just looking at the amount of taxes they pay vs the benefits they use.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Immigrants are most certainly taking jobs that would otherwise be done by Americans. This is not a lie. Even supporters of immigration must realize this on some level. It's not as if we didn't allow immigration, there wouldn't be super markets or restaurants.

Immigration as a whole is good for America. That doesn't mean there aren't winners and losers. And it's not just the 1% that benefits. It also helps those who work white collar jobs and can get cheaper meals at restaurants, cheaper stays at hotels, cheaper prices at supermarkets etc. Without immigrants the standard of living of most Americans would fall.

I notice you say "white collar".  They have benefitted.  But the losers are the folks that make up blue-collar America.

If immigrants are benefitting at the expense of the established working class, is that really OK?

I think the real question is whether or not America as a whole is benefiting.

Look, with the double whammy of immigration and outsourcing, perhaps some control needs to happen. That doesn't mean you elect a racist (there is a difference between being racist and anti-immigration) who is completely incompetent and unqualified for the job.

Mitt Romney was against any legalization of illegal immigrants but did anyone call him a racist? No, because he did not demonize them like Trump is doing. I would like to think you are a good person, but it is hard to do when you support a racist. Perhaps no one has talked about your issues before, but that doesn't mean you should elect someone completely unqualified to sit in the white house. He is only going to make things worse, for citizens and immigrants alike. Indeed, the whole world will be worse off. Mark my words.

People did call Romney a racist.  They also called his proposals "heartless" and "cruel" and "xenophobic" when it came to immigration.  They also brought up the Mormon Church's history of denying blacks until the late 1970s.

By the way:  I voted for Obama in 2012.  Just to shed some light on things.  

As for this election, I voted for Trump in the primary.  I am not asking anyone else to vote for him, and I am conflicted between my agreement with Trump on a checklist of issues and his persona.  I do wonder, especially on the issue of immigration, if Trump actually realizes that he's right on the issue all around, given his seeming aversion to talk policy details.  

But I find the accusations of racism toward myself, and others like me here, to be incredibly untoward.  If it is racist to speak on the issue of immigration in any other terms than "Let them all come!", and it is racist to specify the problems caused by illegal immigration from Mexico through our porous Southern border, and suggest that solutions need to be implemented that both (A) stop the flow and (B) deter others that might try to crash the border, then Trump is correct on political correctness.  "Racism" becomes the "Trump Card" (no pun intended) to cut off factually-based discussion on issues that involve race, ethnicity, and demography, and suggest solutions opposed by the left.

Your statement, "I think the real question is whether or not America as a whole is benefiting." is a legitimate point, but it, too, begs questions?  Are illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States part of your "America as a whole"?  Are folks who harbor illegal aliens to be regarded as much a part of "America as a whole" as folks who have obeyed the law and followed the rules?  Are resident aliens who are not citizens part of your "America as a whole"?  I agree that they all are, in terms of the Bill of Rights, in that rights extend to "persons" and not "citizens", but there is no enumerated right to enter the United States and there is no enumerated right to citizenship.  It's a policy question, so who comprises the "America as a whole" that should benefit from our immigration policies?  And it's even more relevant if you advocate a policy that rewards those who have broken our laws and disregards those who have kept them.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Trumpism is a movement by those who want the government to continue the social programs and who believe the lies that "immigrants are taking their jobs", have a xenophobic attitude towards Muslims and Hispanics, and have generally a centrist to conservative view on social issues. These are the people who have been reluctantly voting for the GOP for years only because of social issues. Trump has exposed the disconnect between them and the leadership of the GOP.

While I dislike defending TrumpMiller or his supporters at all, I suspect some of them are upset not because "immigrants are taking their jobs" but rather "corporations are shipping their jobs to Mexico/China/etc".

We can agree on that.  This matter has been devastating to working class families, and Trump is the only candidate that has challenged the "Free Trade" norms that have devastated our working class.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Excellent points.  This year should may turn out very good!

Here's a quote from Charles Murray's "Trump's America" about Trump's supporters that bears highlighting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are many consequences of Trumpism that will remain with us.  One of them is the end of the GOP nominating process being a contest of "Who's the purest conservative?".  Here you have a major constituency within the GOP that is demanding that the government act on their behalf.  These people have been Republicans and voted Republican forever; they weren't noticed because they were ignored and crapped on.  Until the day, that is, where a turd hit them in the eye and they woke up.  Our politics IS better for this; it's the end of the "Mr. Conservative" beauty contest that would have dismissed Trumpism as an anamoly and made Ted Cruz the "next in line".

The highlighted part is not apparent for readers over 50. Before Reagan the group in question were predominantly Dem. Clinton pulled a number of them back in the 1990's, but Perot got a chunk as well. After 2000, they have been more reliably Pub, especially outside central cities.

I'm 59, and it was readily apparent to me, lol.

muon2 is correct in his analysis.  A lot of the Trump voters in Rust Belt states are, I believe, former Perot voters.  A vote for Perot either time was, in truth, a Republican vote.  1992 was a very good year for Congressional Republicans; they made progress despite the Clinton EV landslide.  For many of these Perot voters, Perot was the way station through which they entered into permanent Repubicanland.

[muon2]

Excellent points.  This year should may turn out very good!

Here's a quote from Charles Murray's "Trump's America" about Trump's supporters that bears highlighting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are many consequences of Trumpism that will remain with us.  One of them is the end of the GOP nominating process being a contest of "Who's the purest conservative?".  Here you have a major constituency within the GOP that is demanding that the government act on their behalf.  These people have been Republicans and voted Republican forever; they weren't noticed because they were ignored and crapped on.  Until the day, that is, where a turd hit them in the eye and they woke up.  Our politics IS better for this; it's the end of the "Mr. Conservative" beauty contest that would have dismissed Trumpism as an anamoly and made Ted Cruz the "next in line".

The highlighted part is not apparent for readers over 50. Before Reagan the group in question were predominantly Dem. Clinton pulled a number of them back in the 1990's, but Perot got a chunk as well. After 2000, they have been more reliably Pub, especially outside central cities.

I'm 59, and it was readily apparent to me, lol.

muon2 is correct in his analysis.  A lot of the Trump voters in Rust Belt states are, I believe, former Perot voters.  A vote for Perot either time was, in truth, a Republican vote.  1992 was a very good year for Congressional Republicans; they made progress despite the Clinton EV landslide.  For many of these Perot voters, Perot was the way station through which they entered into permanent Repubicanland.

How can it be apparent if you agree?

My beef is the use of the phrase "Republican forever". In any case you in the 70's these voters were for Carter not Ford, and in 1968 they split between Humphrey and Wallace (a traditional southern Dem), helping Nixon carry the election.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Excellent points.  This year should may turn out very good!

Here's a quote from Charles Murray's "Trump's America" about Trump's supporters that bears highlighting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are many consequences of Trumpism that will remain with us.  One of them is the end of the GOP nominating process being a contest of "Who's the purest conservative?".  Here you have a major constituency within the GOP that is demanding that the government act on their behalf.  These people have been Republicans and voted Republican forever; they weren't noticed because they were ignored and crapped on.  Until the day, that is, where a turd hit them in the eye and they woke up.  Our politics IS better for this; it's the end of the "Mr. Conservative" beauty contest that would have dismissed Trumpism as an anamoly and made Ted Cruz the "next in line".

The highlighted part is not apparent for readers over 50. Before Reagan the group in question were predominantly Dem. Clinton pulled a number of them back in the 1990's, but Perot got a chunk as well. After 2000, they have been more reliably Pub, especially outside central cities.

I'm 59, and it was readily apparent to me, lol.

muon2 is correct in his analysis.  A lot of the Trump voters in Rust Belt states are, I believe, former Perot voters.  A vote for Perot either time was, in truth, a Republican vote.  1992 was a very good year for Congressional Republicans; they made progress despite the Clinton EV landslide.  For many of these Perot voters, Perot was the way station through which they entered into permanent Repubicanland.

How can it be apparent if you agree?

My beef is the use of the phrase "Republican forever". In any case you in the 70's these voters were for Carter not Ford, and in 1968 they split between Humphrey and Wallace (a traditional southern Dem), helping Nixon carry the election.

The youngest you would be if you had voted in 1968 is 69.  The youngest you could be if your first vote was in 1976 is 58.  I would venture to say that most of the voters you speak about from the 60s and 70s are now dead, or really, really old.

I think most of Trump's supporters have voted Republican for President since 2000, exclusively.  For voters 36 and under, that's forever. 

[Sbane]

Immigrants are most certainly taking jobs that would otherwise be done by Americans. This is not a lie. Even supporters of immigration must realize this on some level. It's not as if we didn't allow immigration, there wouldn't be super markets or restaurants.

Immigration as a whole is good for America. That doesn't mean there aren't winners and losers. And it's not just the 1% that benefits. It also helps those who work white collar jobs and can get cheaper meals at restaurants, cheaper stays at hotels, cheaper prices at supermarkets etc. Without immigrants the standard of living of most Americans would fall.

I notice you say "white collar".  They have benefitted.  But the losers are the folks that make up blue-collar America.

If immigrants are benefitting at the expense of the established working class, is that really OK?

I think the real question is whether or not America as a whole is benefiting.

Look, with the double whammy of immigration and outsourcing, perhaps some control needs to happen. That doesn't mean you elect a racist (there is a difference between being racist and anti-immigration) who is completely incompetent and unqualified for the job.

Mitt Romney was against any legalization of illegal immigrants but did anyone call him a racist? No, because he did not demonize them like Trump is doing. I would like to think you are a good person, but it is hard to do when you support a racist. Perhaps no one has talked about your issues before, but that doesn't mean you should elect someone completely unqualified to sit in the white house. He is only going to make things worse, for citizens and immigrants alike. Indeed, the whole world will be worse off. Mark my words.

People did call Romney a racist.  They also called his proposals "heartless" and "cruel" and "xenophobic" when it came to immigration.  They also brought up the Mormon Church's history of denying blacks until the late 1970s.

By the way:  I voted for Obama in 2012.  Just to shed some light on things. 

As for this election, I voted for Trump in the primary.  I am not asking anyone else to vote for him, and I am conflicted between my agreement with Trump on a checklist of issues and his persona.  I do wonder, especially on the issue of immigration, if Trump actually realizes that he's right on the issue all around, given his seeming aversion to talk policy details. 

But I find the accusations of racism toward myself, and others like me here, to be incredibly untoward.  If it is racist to speak on the issue of immigration in any other terms than "Let them all come!", and it is racist to specify the problems caused by illegal immigration from Mexico through our porous Southern border, and suggest that solutions need to be implemented that both (A) stop the flow and (B) deter others that might try to crash the border, then Trump is correct on political correctness.  "Racism" becomes the "Trump Card" (no pun intended) to cut off factually-based discussion on issues that involve race, ethnicity, and demography, and suggest solutions opposed by the left.

Your statement, "I think the real question is whether or not America as a whole is benefiting." is a legitimate point, but it, too, begs questions?  Are illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States part of your "America as a whole"?  Are folks who harbor illegal aliens to be regarded as much a part of "America as a whole" as folks who have obeyed the law and followed the rules?  Are resident aliens who are not citizens part of your "America as a whole"?  I agree that they all are, in terms of the Bill of Rights, in that rights extend to "persons" and not "citizens", but there is no enumerated right to enter the United States and there is no enumerated right to citizenship.  It's a policy question, so who comprises the "America as a whole" that should benefit from our immigration policies?  And it's even more relevant if you advocate a policy that rewards those who have broken our laws and disregards those who have kept them.

I am not sure who called Romney a racist. It was probably one of the SJW idiots who are partly responsible for this Trump nonsense by crying wolf. Now that an actual racist is running, people are tuning it out.

You really don't understand my issues with Trump (and his supporters) or you really don't want to. If you want to argue against immigration, that is fine. What is not fine is unfairly demonizing immigrant groups. Calling most Mexican illegal immigrants rapists is not fine, that is racist. You want to increase scrutiny of people coming from the Middle East, fine. What is not fine is saying all Muslims (majority of whom don't even live in the Middle East) can't come into the United States. I did find Romney to be heartless, but I never thought that he was racist. And him coming out against Trump shows that at his core he is a decent person. Donald Trump is not. And if you support a racist like Trump, it's on you to explain why you aren't a racist yourself.

I will reiterate this so maybe you can finally get it. Being against immigration is not racist in and of itself (though many are against immigration for racist reasons, like Trump). If Trump had made his case in a decent manner without demonizing people, he might actually be winning at this point. The Brexit vote shows that there is a lot of support for stopping globalization at this moment of time. I just hope they don't elect a racist and incompetent ass like Trump to make that point to the governing elite. It would be an absolute disaster for this country. It could lead to a civil war on the streets. Is that what you want?

When I say "America as a whole", I mean America as a whole. I am thinking in terms of what is good for sustaining GDP growth and protecting entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare without bankrupting the country. I am thinking of how to best preserve the standard of living for most Americans. I am not thinking about it at an individual level for any person, but for the country as a whole. I am a big picture guy, and I am talking about the big picture when I say that. I do realize that immigration hurts some people and helps some people (and I am excluding immigrants when I am thinking of this). What effect does it have on balance? It is a positive effect, on balance, in my opinion.

[Beet]

There are some good points in this article.

[Derpist]

The working class will not be voting for Trump. This isn't Europe.

This. The working-class didn't vote for Trump - they voted for Bernie Sanders. Trump won the middle-class.

Then again, this means Trump doesn't realy need to win the working-class. He just needs to lose it less than Mitt Romney did. Not sure yet if he will be able to do so.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Immigrants are most certainly taking jobs that would otherwise be done by Americans. This is not a lie. Even supporters of immigration must realize this on some level. It's not as if we didn't allow immigration, there wouldn't be super markets or restaurants.

Immigration as a whole is good for America. That doesn't mean there aren't winners and losers. And it's not just the 1% that benefits. It also helps those who work white collar jobs and can get cheaper meals at restaurants, cheaper stays at hotels, cheaper prices at supermarkets etc. Without immigrants the standard of living of most Americans would fall.

I notice you say "white collar".  They have benefitted.  But the losers are the folks that make up blue-collar America.

If immigrants are benefitting at the expense of the established working class, is that really OK?

I think the real question is whether or not America as a whole is benefiting.

Look, with the double whammy of immigration and outsourcing, perhaps some control needs to happen. That doesn't mean you elect a racist (there is a difference between being racist and anti-immigration) who is completely incompetent and unqualified for the job.

Mitt Romney was against any legalization of illegal immigrants but did anyone call him a racist? No, because he did not demonize them like Trump is doing. I would like to think you are a good person, but it is hard to do when you support a racist. Perhaps no one has talked about your issues before, but that doesn't mean you should elect someone completely unqualified to sit in the white house. He is only going to make things worse, for citizens and immigrants alike. Indeed, the whole world will be worse off. Mark my words.

People did call Romney a racist.  They also called his proposals "heartless" and "cruel" and "xenophobic" when it came to immigration.  They also brought up the Mormon Church's history of denying blacks until the late 1970s.

By the way:  I voted for Obama in 2012.  Just to shed some light on things. 

As for this election, I voted for Trump in the primary.  I am not asking anyone else to vote for him, and I am conflicted between my agreement with Trump on a checklist of issues and his persona.  I do wonder, especially on the issue of immigration, if Trump actually realizes that he's right on the issue all around, given his seeming aversion to talk policy details. 

But I find the accusations of racism toward myself, and others like me here, to be incredibly untoward.  If it is racist to speak on the issue of immigration in any other terms than "Let them all come!", and it is racist to specify the problems caused by illegal immigration from Mexico through our porous Southern border, and suggest that solutions need to be implemented that both (A) stop the flow and (B) deter others that might try to crash the border, then Trump is correct on political correctness.  "Racism" becomes the "Trump Card" (no pun intended) to cut off factually-based discussion on issues that involve race, ethnicity, and demography, and suggest solutions opposed by the left.

Your statement, "I think the real question is whether or not America as a whole is benefiting." is a legitimate point, but it, too, begs questions?  Are illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States part of your "America as a whole"?  Are folks who harbor illegal aliens to be regarded as much a part of "America as a whole" as folks who have obeyed the law and followed the rules?  Are resident aliens who are not citizens part of your "America as a whole"?  I agree that they all are, in terms of the Bill of Rights, in that rights extend to "persons" and not "citizens", but there is no enumerated right to enter the United States and there is no enumerated right to citizenship.  It's a policy question, so who comprises the "America as a whole" that should benefit from our immigration policies?  And it's even more relevant if you advocate a policy that rewards those who have broken our laws and disregards those who have kept them.

I am not sure who called Romney a racist. It was probably one of the SJW idiots who are partly responsible for this Trump nonsense by crying wolf. Now that an actual racist is running, people are tuning it out.

You really don't understand my issues with Trump (and his supporters) or you really don't want to. If you want to argue against immigration, that is fine. What is not fine is unfairly demonizing immigrant groups. Calling most Mexican illegal immigrants rapists is not fine, that is racist. You want to increase scrutiny of people coming from the Middle East, fine. What is not fine is saying all Muslims (majority of whom don't even live in the Middle East) can't come into the United States. I did find Romney to be heartless, but I never thought that he was racist. And him coming out against Trump shows that at his core he is a decent person. Donald Trump is not. And if you support a racist like Trump, it's on you to explain why you aren't a racist yourself.

I will reiterate this so maybe you can finally get it. Being against immigration is not racist in and of itself (though many are against immigration for racist reasons, like Trump). If Trump had made his case in a decent manner without demonizing people, he might actually be winning at this point. The Brexit vote shows that there is a lot of support for stopping globalization at this moment of time. I just hope they don't elect a racist and incompetent ass like Trump to make that point to the governing elite. It would be an absolute disaster for this country. It could lead to a civil war on the streets. Is that what you want?

When I say "America as a whole", I mean America as a whole. I am thinking in terms of what is good for sustaining GDP growth and protecting entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare without bankrupting the country. I am thinking of how to best preserve the standard of living for most Americans. I am not thinking about it at an individual level for any person, but for the country as a whole. I am a big picture guy, and I am talking about the big picture when I say that. I do realize that immigration hurts some people and helps some people (and I am excluding immigrants when I am thinking of this). What effect does it have on balance? It is a positive effect, on balance, in my opinion.

I'll buy into this.
 
In the end, I'm going to vote for one candidate.  I have made reference to my reservations about Trump's persona on the campaign trail.

[RINO Tom]

Excellent points.  This year should may turn out very good!

Here's a quote from Charles Murray's "Trump's America" about Trump's supporters that bears highlighting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are many consequences of Trumpism that will remain with us.  One of them is the end of the GOP nominating process being a contest of "Who's the purest conservative?".  Here you have a major constituency within the GOP that is demanding that the government act on their behalf.  These people have been Republicans and voted Republican forever; they weren't noticed because they were ignored and crapped on.  Until the day, that is, where a turd hit them in the eye and they woke up.  Our politics IS better for this; it's the end of the "Mr. Conservative" beauty contest that would have dismissed Trumpism as an anamoly and made Ted Cruz the "next in line".

The implications on the conservative movement are enormous, I do agree.  I never thought I'd see the day when Rush Limbaugh would become wobbly on the question of how important it is that the GOP candidate be a true conservative.  But here we are.
But if the neocons are out, I won't miss them.  Pat Buchanan is a staunch conservative and he's on the Trump train.  Exciting times are upon us!
I like the blue avatar!

No, he's not.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Excellent points.  This year should may turn out very good!

Here's a quote from Charles Murray's "Trump's America" about Trump's supporters that bears highlighting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are many consequences of Trumpism that will remain with us.  One of them is the end of the GOP nominating process being a contest of "Who's the purest conservative?".  Here you have a major constituency within the GOP that is demanding that the government act on their behalf.  These people have been Republicans and voted Republican forever; they weren't noticed because they were ignored and crapped on.  Until the day, that is, where a turd hit them in the eye and they woke up.  Our politics IS better for this; it's the end of the "Mr. Conservative" beauty contest that would have dismissed Trumpism as an anamoly and made Ted Cruz the "next in line".

The implications on the conservative movement are enormous, I do agree.  I never thought I'd see the day when Rush Limbaugh would become wobbly on the question of how important it is that the GOP candidate be a true conservative.  But here we are.
But if the neocons are out, I won't miss them.  Pat Buchanan is a staunch conservative and he's on the Trump train.  Exciting times are upon us!
I like the blue avatar!

No, he's not.

Buchanan is an America First Paleoconservative.  Indeed, this election cycle is about redefining conservatism as it pertains to the GOP Presidential nominating process.

[SillyAmerican]

Immigrants are most certainly taking jobs that would otherwise be done by Americans. This is not a lie. Even supporters of immigration must realize this on some level. It's not as if we didn't allow immigration, there wouldn't be super markets or restaurants.

Immigration as a whole is good for America. That doesn't mean there aren't winners and losers. And it's not just the 1% that benefits. It also helps those who work white collar jobs and can get cheaper meals at restaurants, cheaper stays at hotels, cheaper prices at supermarkets etc. Without immigrants the standard of living of most Americans would fall.

I notice you say "white collar".  They have benefitted.  But the losers are the folks that make up blue-collar America.

If immigrants are benefitting at the expense of the established working class, is that really OK?

I think the real question is whether or not America as a whole is benefiting.

Look, with the double whammy of immigration and outsourcing, perhaps some control needs to happen. That doesn't mean you elect a racist (there is a difference between being racist and anti-immigration) who is completely incompetent and unqualified for the job.

Mitt Romney was against any legalization of illegal immigrants but did anyone call him a racist? No, because he did not demonize them like Trump is doing. I would like to think you are a good person, but it is hard to do when you support a racist. Perhaps no one has talked about your issues before, but that doesn't mean you should elect someone completely unqualified to sit in the white house. He is only going to make things worse, for citizens and immigrants alike. Indeed, the whole world will be worse off. Mark my words.

People did call Romney a racist.  They also called his proposals "heartless" and "cruel" and "xenophobic" when it came to immigration.  They also brought up the Mormon Church's history of denying blacks until the late 1970s.

By the way:  I voted for Obama in 2012.  Just to shed some light on things. 

As for this election, I voted for Trump in the primary.  I am not asking anyone else to vote for him, and I am conflicted between my agreement with Trump on a checklist of issues and his persona.  I do wonder, especially on the issue of immigration, if Trump actually realizes that he's right on the issue all around, given his seeming aversion to talk policy details. 

But I find the accusations of racism toward myself, and others like me here, to be incredibly untoward.  If it is racist to speak on the issue of immigration in any other terms than "Let them all come!", and it is racist to specify the problems caused by illegal immigration from Mexico through our porous Southern border, and suggest that solutions need to be implemented that both (A) stop the flow and (B) deter others that might try to crash the border, then Trump is correct on political correctness.  "Racism" becomes the "Trump Card" (no pun intended) to cut off factually-based discussion on issues that involve race, ethnicity, and demography, and suggest solutions opposed by the left.

Your statement, "I think the real question is whether or not America as a whole is benefiting." is a legitimate point, but it, too, begs questions?  Are illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States part of your "America as a whole"?  Are folks who harbor illegal aliens to be regarded as much a part of "America as a whole" as folks who have obeyed the law and followed the rules?  Are resident aliens who are not citizens part of your "America as a whole"?  I agree that they all are, in terms of the Bill of Rights, in that rights extend to "persons" and not "citizens", but there is no enumerated right to enter the United States and there is no enumerated right to citizenship.  It's a policy question, so who comprises the "America as a whole" that should benefit from our immigration policies?  And it's even more relevant if you advocate a policy that rewards those who have broken our laws and disregards those who have kept them.

I am not sure who called Romney a racist. It was probably one of the SJW idiots who are partly responsible for this Trump nonsense by crying wolf. Now that an actual racist is running, people are tuning it out.

You really don't understand my issues with Trump (and his supporters) or you really don't want to. If you want to argue against immigration, that is fine. What is not fine is unfairly demonizing immigrant groups. Calling most Mexican illegal immigrants rapists is not fine, that is racist. You want to increase scrutiny of people coming from the Middle East, fine. What is not fine is saying all Muslims (majority of whom don't even live in the Middle East) can't come into the United States. I did find Romney to be heartless, but I never thought that he was racist. And him coming out against Trump shows that at his core he is a decent person. Donald Trump is not. And if you support a racist like Trump, it's on you to explain why you aren't a racist yourself.

I will reiterate this so maybe you can finally get it. Being against immigration is not racist in and of itself (though many are against immigration for racist reasons, like Trump). If Trump had made his case in a decent manner without demonizing people, he might actually be winning at this point. The Brexit vote shows that there is a lot of support for stopping globalization at this moment of time. I just hope they don't elect a racist and incompetent ass like Trump to make that point to the governing elite. It would be an absolute disaster for this country. It could lead to a civil war on the streets. Is that what you want?

When I say "America as a whole", I mean America as a whole. I am thinking in terms of what is good for sustaining GDP growth and protecting entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare without bankrupting the country. I am thinking of how to best preserve the standard of living for most Americans. I am not thinking about it at an individual level for any person, but for the country as a whole. I am a big picture guy, and I am talking about the big picture when I say that. I do realize that immigration hurts some people and helps some people (and I am excluding immigrants when I am thinking of this). What effect does it have on balance? It is a positive effect, on balance, in my opinion.

I'll buy into this.
 
In the end, I'm going to vote for one candidate.  I have made reference to my reservations about Trump's persona on the campaign trail.

Yes.

On the June 26th broadcast of Face the Nation, Tavis Smiley makes the following insightful comment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Both the US and Europe need more immigrants on account of their aging native-born populations. Who else will subsidize the rapidly growing retiree population since the share of the total population that are workers is declining?

[BigSkyBob]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-america-1455290458

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This article is long, but compelling.  It's one reason I think Trump will do better than the polls, and why he won't be on the losing end of a landslide a la Goldwater or McGovern.

This article ought to be viewed in the context that the WSJ signing onto the project of defeating Donald Trump by as large margin as possible solely for the purpose of sending a message to those who supported Trump in primaries. So, while the "message" of this article is that these folks ought to be heard, the policies of the WSJ is punish those same voters so that they shut up and do exactly as the WSJ dictates.

This is an even more brilliant dialogue of "Trumpism."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK0jeJ8wxg

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-america-1455290458

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This article is long, but compelling.  It's one reason I think Trump will do better than the polls, and why he won't be on the losing end of a landslide a la Goldwater or McGovern.

This article ought to be viewed in the context that the WSJ signing onto the project of defeating Donald Trump by as large margin as possible solely for the purpose of sending a message to those who supported Trump in primaries. So, while the "message" of this article is that these folks ought to be heard, the policies of the WSJ is punish those same voters so that they shut up and do exactly as the WSJ dictates.

This is an even more brilliant dialogue of "Trumpism."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK0jeJ8wxg

The highlighted quote is very true.  It illustrates the attitude the GOP Establishment, and even "Movement Conservatives" have taken toward Trump.  All to deflect their shocking discovery of the fact that a whole lot of REAL Republicans (by "real", I mean regular GOP Presidential Ticket voters) AREN'T for their less government/free trade slop that they've had forced on them.  It's not hyperbole to say that Trump has been these folks's "champion"; the rest of the GOP has had their "champions", and has, until not, had their way, unfettered.

[muon2]

I think that it's an important distinction between less government and what is perceived as responsive government. Trump's supporters do not trust government and believe it doesn't work for them or appreciate their interests. That doesn't mean they want it to go away. It does mean they want it to change to match their worldview. In some cases it means departments should go away, but in other cases agencies should reform and even expand to support the desires of these people who feel ignored by government over the last decade or two.