Why you should love the Don???

[josephpalazzo]

Found this on reddit:

I haven't read many persuasive reasons for supporting Trump on r/politics, and I've seen a lot of non-substance related bashing as well. Taken from another thread, these are my thoughts on Trump as a candidate and why I support him. My hope for this thread is that a different/unpopular opinion can be debated without being automatically down-voted for going against popular thinking. So with that being said, here are my reasons:

1) Let's address immigration:

Trump has been vocally anti-illegal immigration and vocally pro-legal immigration. I know of countless poor Indian people who have made incredible sacrifices to get technical degrees and are looking to come to the US in search of a better life. But they have to deal with the very bureaucratic, expensive, and often corrupt process of obtaining a visa. Then there are people in the Indian American community who have been in the US for 15+ years and still can't get a green card because it's based on a crapshoot lottery. These are people who have paid taxes, created economic value and generally enriched their communities for years but still aren't guaranteed permanent residence status. In 2001 illegal immigrants who applied for green cards through an amnesty program weren't placed in a separate queue from legal immigrants. I have an Irish buddy who says that it personally cost him upwards of $20,000 in visa extensions and legal fees. Here's perhaps a surprising sentiment: I have nothing against illegal immigrants who escape desperate circumstances in search of a better life. But they are still breaking the law and causing a strain on the system. The country has laws and aside from the negative economic impact (working for sub-standard wages, not paying taxes, etc.) it's not fair that they're held to different standards than poor people trying to escape desperate circumstances from more geographically distant regions. When people take an anti-illegal immigration stance and accuse it of being anti-immigration, it is disrespectful to the scores of families who have struggled--and paid--to come to this country legally.

2) All that being said, I don't really care about illegal immigration. I believe that America's power base is based on its strong economic and military influence. As such, I consider the main priority of the President to stimulate economic growth through effective stewardship of those two areas. This involves strong leadership through effective negotiating and a foreign policy that is aligned with America's role as a superpower (i.e. you don't have to be an aggressive war hawk but you certainly can't be an isolationist). I trust Trump's negotiating prowess and ability to assemble an effective team. Trump talked about Chinese currency manipulation before anyone else. Trump talked about the massive trade imbalances with China and Japan before others--highlighting the asymmetries in our trade deals (e.g. China charges import tariffs but America doesn't). Trump has been, thus far, the only candidate to criticize the TPP for leaving a backdoor open to China. Trump has dealt with foreign governments and corporations for years now, so he is not totally without experience. I also like his position on non-intervention in Syria, but recognition that Putin is in for his own interests and a more aggressive stance on Iraq. I believe a VP candidate like Jim Webb with military experience would be a great complement to the ticket.

3) Dovetailing with the previous point, I am a business guy who would generally love to see corporate leaders in the White House. This is due to my background. Trump studied finance at Wharton-- I studied finance at Wharton. A CEO who has achieved extraordinary growth in a business as complex and competitive as real estate in a market as politically brutal as Manhattan has demonstrated an ability to be aggressive, political and pro-active. I want talent that has proven itself in the shark world of corporate America to bring that attitude to the inertia of Washington.

4) This is VERY important to me. I think the fact that Trump is not beholden to a corporate donor base is huge. It's so true that when special interests are enabling you to win an election, you will definitely pick up the phone when they call and it will be very difficult to vote against them when that situation arises. Trump and Bernie are the only two candidates who aren't beholden to any large backers and I'm not ideologically aligned with Bernie.

5) Let's address the bankruptcies:

Trump's four bankruptcies (not personal bankruptcies obviously) all relate to his Atlantic City investment. So right off the bat, the perception that he started four separate companies that all filed for bankruptcy is inaccurate. It is more accurately one dogged investment.

Secondly, the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, not Chapter 7. A Chapter 7 bankruptcy is what we think of traditional bankruptcy: liquidate your assets, compensate your creditors and shareholders as best you can, and go home--the show's over. Chapter 11 is different. It is a mediated reorganization process meant to renegotiate debt so that the company can survive and hopefully recover. Some of the biggest companies you can think of have filed for Chapter 11--General Motors and MGM come to mind (plus several airlines). It certainly never looks GOOD, but it is not a black mark in the way people treat it. As an aside, our Chapter 11 laws are one of the great things about this country from a business standpoint.

Thirdly, many businesses have failed in Atlantic City. Caesar's went bankrupt as well. When you have an entire geographic region failing, there are obviously macro trends at play that are working against you. To ignore these completely and pretend Trump's bankruptcies were entirely the result of bad management is unreasonable.

Fourthly, the perception that Trump "left his investors hanging" is not illustrative of how finance works. First of all, people are incorrectly using the term "investors". These are creditors we are talking about. They are large banks that did thorough diligence before deciding it would be a profitable use of capital to lend money to Trump. That is, they understood the risks. To paint these lenders as victims is not an accurate portrayal of the fundraising process.

Fifthly, to ignore the extraordinary growth Trump achieved in his career and define him by one relatively small, struggling investment is--quite frankly--absurd.

To summarize: Chapter 11 bankruptcies aren't a good sign but they are nowhere near as problematic as people make them out to be, and by no means should they suddenly define the career of a guy who's now worth billions. I find the popular perception to be spread mainly by individuals who don't really know how finance works.

6) Regarding the tax code: his plan has a strong focus on making America a competitive place to do business. This is achieved by two means: make it cheaper to do business in America and make it more expensive to do business elsewhere. To that extent I want the corporate tax rate to be more globally competitive and I want it to be cheaper (and by cheaper I mean "not prohibitively expensive") to bring foreign cash reserves home.

I do wonder how he's going to reduce the deficit given that he is already assuming unprecedented growth levels, but my general feeling is this: all else being equal if anyone can design effective budget cuts, it will be someone from the private sector.

That is a (relatively) brief explanation for my (and my family's) support of Trump. You might disagree, and that's fine. But I hope at the very least that you won't just write us off as morons in the way so many Trump supporters are written off as such (I'm sure some deserve the label), and I also hope you think about Trump's candidacy beyond the headlines and the sound bites.

WHAT SAYS YOU...

[Hydra009]

#1 is pure spin-doctoring.  If Trump was simply against illegal immigration, it wouldn't make headlines.  His actual stance is just a tad more extreme than that:

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

"What can be simpler or more accurately stated? The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."

Needless to say, there are numerous factual problems in these statements and I have serious issues with people who look at that sort of rhetoric and think that's presidential material.

#2 actually has a some good points.  The US is a military and economic powerhouse (we also have a decent amount of soft power).  And our key problem in recent years has been poorly managing our strengths.

#3 is purely subjective.  Would CEOs be great political leaders?  Maybe, maybe not.

#4 is actually a great reason to vote for Sanders.  Alas, the author is conservative.  More's the pity.

#5 is more spin doctoring

#6 - I honestly don't know enough about Trump's tax policies to evaluate whether or not it would make "America a competitive place to do business" though I'm inclined to doubt it.  We'll see.

[PopeyesPappy]

According to the Tax Policy Center Trump's tax plan will cost the Fed about $10 trillion revenue over 10 years even assuming his rather optimistic economic growth rates. That would require a 25-30% cut to the budget just to keep us where we are now. Subtract another 17% to service the existing Debt. A lot more if he wants to balance the budget. That's going to leave less than 50% of the 2015 budget. He says keep defense strong. That's another 20% that becomes untouchable leaving only about 25-30% of the current budget for everything other than defense and servicing the debt. Who thinks that's a good idea?

[Hydra009]

Reasons to despise the Don:

1) Birther
2) Global warming denialist ("invented by the Chinese")
3) anti-vaxxer (the "vaccines cause autism" variety)

Any one of those things would sink a Dem.  Apparently, standards are much lower in the GOP.

[josephpalazzo]

It would be barbaric to send away 11-12 million illegal immigrants, but how would he do it? How much would it cost??

[Hydra009]

It would be barbaric to send away 11-12 million illegal immigrants, but how would he do it? How much would it cost??

Trump's in favor of "rounding 'em up in a very humane way" and praised Operation Wetback (now there's a popular word among Hispanic immigrants!)  Presumably, his policy would be much the same.

You know, I wasn't terribly familiar with this guy until recently, but now I want this guy to win the nomination sooo bad!  Political pundits love to guess who'd get which vote - women, men, blacks, latinos, etc.  This time, they wouldn't even have to guess who'd get the latino vote.

[Mermaid]

Reasons to despise the Don:

1) Birther
2) Global warming denialist ("invented by the Chinese")
3) anti-vaxxer (the "vaccines cause autism" variety)

Any one of those things would sink a Dem.  Apparently, standards are much lower in the GOP.

I can come up with a few more: He eats pizza with a fork. And he's a sexist pig.

[TomFoolery]

Bill O'Reilly asked the Donald if he had a problem with Islam and it's spread around the world. Donald replied, "absolutely, absolutely, I don't notice Swedish people knocking down the World Trade Center."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuWoR7MUIY4

In addition to flip-flopping on abortion, he has also flip-flopped on gay marriage, depending on audience.

And perhaps most ickily, he's declared he'll be "the greatest representative of the Christians they've had in a long time." He's mad about what's going on in Syria, because think of all those sad Christians being killed. More specifically, he believes Christians around the globe do not have anybody representing them. (I don't know if he's ever heard of the Pope?) He's also really irritated that (according to him) it's easier for Muslims to come to the U.S. than persecuted Christians. http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2015/05/20/donald-trump-tells-brody-file-as-president--i-will.aspx

So his answer to the Syrian refugee crisis is that of course the U.S. should be doing more: as long as the refugees are Christian.

[Mermaid]

Bill O'Reilly asked the Donald if he had a problem with Islam and it's spread around the world. Donald replied, "absolutely, absolutely, I don't notice Swedish people knocking down the World Trade Center."

That caused me physical pain.

[Hydra009]

In addition to flip-flopping on abortion, he has also flip-flopped on gay marriage, depending on audience.

Well, things change and sometimes things are beyond one's control. I've never understood this need for politicians to stay the same.  :P

[TomFoolery]

Well, things change and sometimes things are beyond one's control. I've never understood this need for politicians to stay the same.  :P

Yes, but I was more referring to reactions to policy, not slaves to fashion. Donald Trump's change in his opinions about abortion and homosexuality is more about pandering to a specific audience, not in new research or economic situations.

For example, when George Bush promised not to raise taxes and then had to due to a recession, I get that. Things change. But George Bush didn't do a random survey of his constituency, decide it was more liberal, and then decide to start taxing people out of popular demand.

[Deidre32]

“There’s nothing I love more than women, but they’re really a lot different than portrayed. They are far worse than men, far more aggressive, and boy, can they be smart. Let’s give credit where credit is due, and let’s salute women for their tremendous power, which most men are afraid to admit they have.” (“Trump: The Art of the Comeback”)


''They''...as if we are creatures from another planet.

I shudder to think that the best the US has to offer if it boils down to it, is Hilary Clinton vs Donald Trump.

Yikes.

[Hydra009]

Yes, but I was more referring to reactions to policy, not slaves to fashion. Donald Trump's change in his opinions about abortion and homosexuality is more about pandering to a specific audience, not in new research or economic situations.

I agree.  I was just joshing ya.  It was too good an opportunity to pass up.

[TomFoolery]

I agree.  I was just joshing ya.  It was too good an opportunity to pass up.

Okie dokie. :)

Then it went from Donald Trump blaming all of Islam for 9/11 to claiming that if he had been president, shit never would have happened because of "how tough he would be on immigration."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/18/politics/donald-trump-jeb-bush-9-11/?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool&iref=obnetwork

Never mind the attackers were here legally on tourist, business and student visas... Were we just going to stop issuing those types of visas and lose billions upon billions of dollars in the tourism and business industries? Not to mention a decline in the caliber of talent at our universities?

I just wish he'd wait to say such outrageous things until after he gets the nomination.

[josephpalazzo]

Trump's in favor of "rounding 'em up in a very humane way" and praised Operation Wetback (now there's a popular word among Hispanic immigrants!)  Presumably, his policy would be much the same.

You know, I wasn't terribly familiar with this guy until recently, but now I want this guy to win the nomination sooo bad!  Political pundits love to guess who'd get which vote - women, men, blacks, latinos, etc.  This time, they wouldn't even have to guess who'd get the latino vote.

Thanks for the link. I tried to look for sources on the cost then in the 1950's so as to estimate what would be the cost now, but couldn't find any link. All in all, if Trump wants to cut taxes - what else from the GOP - and building a fence between the US and Mexico, my guess is altogether with ousting illegal immigrants that would shoot the deficit through the roof.