What does Trump say about Trump's intentions? A discussion thread for official Trump campaign positions

[Politesse]

As for the second clause, "STOP THE MIGRANT INVASION", this is intentionally vague and dangerous rhetoric. It assumes of course, that there is a migrant invasion. There isn't, at least by any reasonable definition of "invasion". At best, that's a serious exaggeration, and its an exaggeration that puts innocent people at risk. For what I hope are obvious reasons, I oppose any use of militaristic language to refer to civilians, and this is obviously that. Just as "terrorist" is currently being used to justify the slaughter of a great many civilians overseas, it is setting us up for bloodshed to refer to American citizens or even guest workers and students as "invaders". It's all the more dangerous, because while I think most intelligent citizens ought to know that the term is rhetorical, it's obvious that a great many Americans don't, and truly believe that the number of attempted migrations into the country has risen because some enemy state actor is sending them with the intention of undermining the state. As long as this conspiracy theory is active and popular in the right wing media, using the term at all is tantamount to calling for a witch hunt. It's illegal to attack your "neighbor" unprovoked. But doesn't every citizen have a right, even a responsibilty, to repel foreign "invaders"? It also risks putting our political alliances and business partnerships in the "invading nations" in jeopardy. At a time when multiple other rising global superpowers are actively recruiting, trying to steal away our former alliances and subvert those nations' politics toward their own ends, treating our existing allies as though they were already our enemies is really fucking stupid.

The other problem is, of course, that abruptly ending all migration into the country is both an obvious practical impossibility, and an act that would collapse our economy in a matter of weeks if it were somehow accomplished. Once again, that cannot be what he means, but it is what he says. And not just says, but makes point number one in his 20 core statements. It's a dangerous thought to be setting at the veyr center of his domestic policy agenda. And as we will see, several of his other points flow from it. Such as:

 

[Politesse]

2. CARRY OUT THE LARGEST DEPORTATION OPERATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY

 

[TSwizzle]

As for the second clause, "STOP THE MIGRANT INVASION", this is intentionally vague and dangerous rhetoric. It assumes of course, that there is a migrant invasion. There isn't, at least by any reasonable definition of "invasion". At best, that's a serious exaggeration, and its an exaggeration that puts innocent people at risk.

I agree it is a very poor choice of words. However, I have seen estimates as high as 10 million people have crossed the border, many of them illegally and a lot claiming asylum. The strain on resources around the country has been well documented. Millions of people just moving to the USA is a problem.

The other problem is, of course, that abruptly ending all migration into the country is both an obvious practical impossibilty, and an act that would collapse our economy in a matter of weeks if it. Once again, that cannot be what he means, but it is what he says. And not just says, but makes point number one in his 20 core statements. It's a dangerous thought to be setting at the veyr center of his domestic policy agenda. {snip}

I think you are getting carried away here. "STOP THE MIGRANT INVASION" does not necessarily mean stop all migrant workers from entering the USA. This is open to interpretation.

 

[Politesse]

This is open to interpretation

Very problematically vague. It could "mean" anything between a slight throttling back of legal immigrations and a full on pogrom of all new immigrants. That, to me, is a bad policy statement.

 

[TSwizzle]

This is open to interpretation

Very problematically vague. It could "mean" anything between a slight throttling back of legal immigrations and a full on pogrom of all new immigrants. That, to me, is a bad policy statement.

Which is why I refer to the more detailed document.

No full on pogrom is suggested which is quite a leap you made.

 

[Politesse]

I agree it is a very poor choice of words. However, I have seen estimates as high as 10 million people have crossed the border, many of them illegally and a lot claiming asylum. The strain on resources around the country has been well documented. Millions of people just moving to the USA is a problem

It has certainly created a lot of problems, on that we might partially agree. But divisive, militaristic rhetoric is making most of those problems worse rather than better. I think that's true regardless of what you think the correct response to those problems might be. I imagine your idea of a solution is more militaristic than mine. However, stoking vague fear and paranoia about outsiders is not helping with the housing, feeding, educating, relocating, arresting, or expelling of any of these new migrants. Rather, it makes any of the above, the cruel or the kind, logistically much harder to accomplish. You can't manage a populational problem sensibly if your citizens are at each other's throats and jumping at shadows. If a warlike atmosphere is accomplished, citizens will interfere with your operations, and are apt to attack each other in addition to your targets. Non-citizens will go as deep underground as they can, and their allies will not cooperate with your agents. How is this kind of talk supposed to help with Trump's planned Operation Wetback II in any way?

 

[Shadowy Man]

I agree it is a very poor choice of words. However, I have seen estimates as high as 10 million people have crossed the border, many of them illegally and a lot claiming asylum. The strain on resources around the country has been well documented. Millions of people just moving to the USA is a problem.

I’m sure that any minute now the Republicans will pass a bill intended to address this “problem”.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I will take your rolling eyes as a concession to my point. Thanks.

 

[TSwizzle]

I agree it is a very poor choice of words. However, I have seen estimates as high as 10 million people have crossed the border, many of them illegally and a lot claiming asylum. The strain on resources around the country has been well documented. Millions of people just moving to the USA is a problem

It has certainly created a lot of problems, on that we might partially agree. But divisive, militaristic rhetoric is making most of those problems worse rather than better. I think that's true regardless of what you think the correct response to those problems might be. I imagine your idea of a solution is more militaristic than mine.

Says the guy who brought up pogroms where no such thing has been suggested.

However, stoking vague fear and paranoia about outsiders is not helping with the housing, feeding, educating, relocating, arresting, or expelling of any of these new migrants. Rather, it makes any of the above, the cruel or the kind, logistically much harder to accomplish. You can't manage a populational problem sensibly if your citizens are at each other's throats and jumping at shadows. If a warlike atmosphere is accomplished, citizens will interfere with your operations, and are apt to attack each other in addition to your targets. Non-citizens will go as deep underground as they can, and their allies will not cooperate with your agents. How is this kind of talk supposed to help with Trump's planned Operation Wetback II in any way?

ffs, you just can't help yourself can you?

Ah well, I gave it a shot.

Buh-bye.

 

[Politesse]

I agree it is a very poor choice of words. However, I have seen estimates as high as 10 million people have crossed the border, many of them illegally and a lot claiming asylum. The strain on resources around the country has been well documented. Millions of people just moving to the USA is a problem

It has certainly created a lot of problems, on that we might partially agree. But divisive, militaristic rhetoric is making most of those problems worse rather than better. I think that's true regardless of what you think the correct response to those problems might be. I imagine your idea of a solution is more militaristic than mine.

Says the guy who brought up pogroms where no such thing has been suggested.

However, stoking vague fear and paranoia about outsiders is not helping with the housing, feeding, educating, relocating, arresting, or expelling of any of these new migrants. Rather, it makes any of the above, the cruel or the kind, logistically much harder to accomplish. You can't manage a populational problem sensibly if your citizens are at each other's throats and jumping at shadows. If a warlike atmosphere is accomplished, citizens will interfere with your operations, and are apt to attack each other in addition to your targets. Non-citizens will go as deep underground as they can, and their allies will not cooperate with your agents. How is this kind of talk supposed to help with Trump's planned Operation Wetback II in any way?

ffs, you just can't help yourself can you?

Ah well, I gave it a shot.

Buh-bye.

I'd rather you didn't "buh-bye", tswizzle. Believe it or not, I admire your honesty where Trump is concerned. I don't think you're the only Trump voter on this forum, but you might be the only one who is honest and forthright about it. I appreciate that, and I've been enjoying the opportunity to have an actual conversation about these matters with you rather than the usual eye rolling contest.

As for why I'm referencing Operation Wetback, hold tight. There's a very good reason to be talking about it right now. Namely, promise no. 2 of the 20 Core Promises:

2. CARRY OUT THE LARGEST DEPORTATION OPERATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY

The current "largest deportation operation in American history" was Operation Wetback, and I think we need to look at what that operation was and what we can learn from it, if attempting to repeat that operation on an even grander scale is going to be Trump's second priority in office.