Hacker News Reader

Comment by athinggoingon | Hacker News Reader

> Trump's casual racism, misogyny, and conspiracy theories are without precedent among major presidential nominees. He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage

Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the judge presiding over the Trump university case, is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. La Raza is a group that advocates for a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants.

> we should ban Muslims from entering the country.

Trump wants to ban Muslims from majority Muslim countries that are currently involved in prolonged wars which makes a comprehensive background investigation impossible to do.

> When his supporters beat up a homeless Hispanic man and cited Trump, he called them “very passionate”.

You forgot to mention all of the Trump supporters that get chased and beat up by Mexican flag waving protesters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/0...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2...

This by no means justifies violence on the Trump supporters side, but please do some research to find out the majority of the violence is perpetrated by the protesters that show up to Trump rallies and not the other way around.

I can go on and dismantle every other premise in this article using data and logic, but I will stop here.

View on HN

> > He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage

> La Raza is a group that advocates for a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants.

What does that have to do with his heritage. There are people that believe that without Mexican descent. I believe it, and I'm not Mexican, and am not an immigrant, and neither are my parents. There are people of Mexican descent that don't believe in a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants (I know one). Reducing people's behavior to something fueled by ethnicity is racism. It is not appropriate to, even with the link pointed out, to assume that Curiel's view regarding immigration does not have basis in beliefs that are distinct from his heritage. It is not appropriate to then further use this as evidence for why he's ruling some way in his job without much more than a single case (and this assertion has nothing to do with racism or heritage).

> Trump wants to ban Muslims from majority Muslim countries that are currently involved in prolonged wars which makes a comprehensive background investigation impossible to do.

Freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right. I don't see how this right can be protected if you filter possible future citizens based on religion.

> Reducing people's behavior to something fueled by ethnicity is racism.

So when people say "white people are often racist", that's racism? (I actually agree, minorities are often very racist like that!)

> Freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right.

Most rights are suspended at the border anyways.

> So when people say "white people are often racist", that's racism?

Depending on how you interpret "often", it can be. It's functionally no different than "X people are often lazy" in how it paints a population based on some demographic which actually has nothing to do with that attribute.

If you treat "often" in it's literal sense, as in "this happens a lot", then as long as it's happened at least a few times, it's subjectively true, since often is relative to what you think a good baseline is. If you think one time is more than should be seen, then experiencing it five times could be called "often" (technically. It quickly breaks down when applied to colloquial use in this situation).

The real problem here is assuming a set of personal experiences, whether they number 10 or 1000, necessarily indicate a trait that scales across the entire population of those people. Even leaving out things like confirmation bias, where your original data may be woefully inaccurate, there is little to no evidence that any trend you think you are seeing applies to that ethnicity equally in other locations and situations. You can look at the sentiments of other people and stories in the media for corroboration, but since those aren't accurate representations either, it's still left open to rampant confirmation bias.

This aspect of human psychology was less problematic when we all lived in somewhat small groups. In those cases, the other was the other tribe. Even though they probably looked like you, they were the outsiders, and some distrust and stereotyping of them served the dual purposes of security and social cohesion. The same psychological aspects are at play, and they still cause us to group together, but unfortunately now it promotes the opposite of social cohesion. (and now you have my pop psy take on it).

> (I actually agree, minorities are often very racist like that!)

I see what you did there. :)

> He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage

No, that is what much of the media wants to claim, say, for clicks.

Instead, there are two points where can use because. The first point is, Trump asserts that the judge is unfair, and Trump asserts this because of the judge's rulings. The assertion of unfairness is from the rulings with nothing to do with Mexico. Second, as in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKmpB7SeNE

with

> All I'm trying to do is figure out why I'm being treated so unfairly by a judge. And a lot of people agree with it. All I want to do, all I want to do is find out why I'm being treated so unfairly by a judge.

Trump was looking for the MOTIVATION of the judge to be unfair. Then it was easy enough to notice that the judge has a Mexican background and is active in some pro-Mexican political causes that conflict with some of Trump's campaign positions on Mexico. So, Trump concluded that the judge's MOTIVATION to be unfair was because of the Mexican stuff.

Trump asserted unfairness because of the RULINGS with nothing about Mexico. Then, as a second step, Trump asserted that the judge was MOTIVATED to be unfair because of the Mexico stuff.

So, we have two points and two uses of because. But much of the media, in their search for clicks, conflated those two to assert that Trump said that the judge was unfair because of the Mexican stuff. Nope: That would be poor evidence that the judge had been unfair. Instead, the claim that the judge was unfair was because of the judge's RULINGS. Then, the MOTIVATION for that unfairness was because of the Mexican stuff.

In no way did Trump assert that all judges with Mexican backgrounds would be unfair, but much of the media wanted to play with words to conclude that.

The US has, IMHO rightly, decided that racism is a bad thing. Sure, long in the US, people of Western European descent were racist against Native Americans, Africans, Irish, Italians, Asians, Jews, and Mexicans. Well, the US has gone a long way to stopping that. But neither do we want Native Americans, ..., etc. to be racist against others, e.g., persons of Western European descent. We want no racism, from anywhere.

> Freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right. I don't see how this right can be protected if you filter possible future citizens based on religion.

There are at least three really big problems with your statement here:

First, the US gets to decide who can enter the country and for that decision can use any reasons or no reasons. Non US citizens outside the US have no "rights" in the US at all. The US gets to run its immigration system in any way it wants.

Second, Islam is a long way from being just a religion. In addition to religion, Islam runs marriages, dress codes, lots of social norms, diets, education, architecture, media, the legal system, foreign policy, government, and, yes, also religion. Each part of Islam regards everyone else as an infidel to be either converted to killed. In this way, the Sunni and Shiite parts of Islam have been at war for 1000+ years, and recent examples include the Iran-Iraq war, the Baghdad-ISIS war, the Syrian civil war, and the high tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran, e.g., in Yemen. Islamic religious leaders issue Fatwahs, commands, calling for Jihad, holy war. ISIS has declared war on Europe and the US. Iran says "Death to America", and that cry is also common in parts of Pakistan. Net, when considering immigrants to the US, Islam must be regarded as not nearly just a religion.

Third, the Islamic immigration under most consideration now is heavily from areas of the Mideast awash in Islamic wars and violent Medieval Islamic culture, indeed, from areas that have declared war on the US. And that immigration is not via the usual legal channels but for "refugees". From the list of violent attacks from radical Islamic terrorists in the US, Europe, etc., the "refugees" are an obvious threat to the US. So, no way should the US admit such people. And, even if the wars end, it is in the strong interests of the US to reject people who likely will not assimilate. E.g., the US does not want whole communities that reject much of US culture and, instead, are devoted politically to religious leaders and follow Sharia law -- not in the interests of the US.

But, a Muslim US citizen has full US citizenship rights as you suggest.

> In no way did Trump assert that all judges with Mexican backgrounds would be unfair, but much of the media wanted to play with words to conclude that.

The problem here is that Trump, given behavior from a judge he doesn't like, latched on to the most likely reason, or at least the reason he felt comfortable discussing on national television, being because of the judge's heritage.

> First, the US gets to decide who can enter the country and for that decision can use any reasons or no reasons. Non US citizens outside the US have no "rights" in the US at all. The US gets to run its immigration system in any way it wants.

I didn't say non-US citizens had rights, or the right to freedom of religion. I said I'm not sure how you can claim freedom of religion if you are restricting it prior to entry, not because the rights of those people are being infringed, but because you've singled out a religion to exclusion prior to entry,and the effect that has on the population may be to restrict that religion in some aspect. Constitutional rights are not something I take lightly, to be played with and followed in letter but not spirit. I don't see how we can possibly protect something as a right of a citizen but use it as exclusion for the act of becoming a citizen while following the spirit of the law (and spirit of the law is important. Almost all the cased the SCOTUS rules on are seen by them because there are conflicting laws, or laws aren't being followed in spirit, and it needs a panel of judges to clarify).

> Second, Islam is a long way from being just a religion. In addition to religion, Islam runs...

Islam is not one homogeneous group with the same views and actions. This is obvious by the Sunni and Shiite war you reference. Islam is made up of many different groups of people. Some of those groups are dangerous, others are not. Should we target Islam, or the actual dangerous groups within it?

A lot of US citizens have committed a felony. Should we restrict the whole population to prevent repeat crimes?

> And that immigration is not via the usual legal channels but for "refugees".

Do you think refugees go through no review process or something? Average time it takes for a refugee to get into the US is over a year[1]. You think this is the first time the US has had to balance humanitarian efforts with national security?

As we noted in a previous fact-check, once a case is referred from the UNHCR to the United States, a refugee undergoes a security clearance check that could take several rounds, an in-person interview, approval by the Department of Homeland Security, medical screening, a match with a sponsor agency, "cultural orientation" classes, and one final security clearance. This all happens before a refugee ever gets onto American soil.

> From the list of violent attacks from radical Islamic terrorists in the US, Europe, etc., the "refugees" are an obvious threat to the US.

You're going to have to link that for me if you expect me to accept it. How many attacks have been carried out by refugees? How many by non-refugees? How many by US citizens (such as the Orlando shooting)?

> And, even if the wars end, it is in the strong interests of the US to reject people who likely will not assimilate. E.g., the US does not want whole communities that reject much of US culture and, instead, are devoted politically to religious leaders and follow Sharia law -- not in the interests of the US.

If they don't follow US law in the United States, they will be arrested for it. If they state their intention to follow some other judicial system before ours, then they should fail their immigration/refugee interview. As to what their culture is like apart from that, I don't think your opinion matters. The United States is an amalgamation of the cultures of many countries, mixing and responding to each other and evolving over centuries, with new infusions of countries and cultures all the time. At some point in the past, there was likely some group that viewed the immigration of some of your ancestors as bringing cultural aspects that didn't mesh well with that thay considered American culture. What makes you any more right then the centuries of people that expressed that opinion before you (and about a markedly different culture from today at the time, as well)?

1: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/...

This whole topic is mostly nasty mud wrestling and is way beneath you and hopefully me.

Yup, likely there are many millions of peaceful Muslims. I hope so. Of course, the claims that some polls show that ballpark 50% of Muslims in the US favor Sharia law would concern me, but I'll put that aside for now.

Your view of freedom of religion is deep and delicate. Freedom of religion is fine with me, but I don't want to call radical Islamic terrorism devoted to an international enemy of the US, e.g., ISIS just a religion.

Your description of how refugees get vetted on their way into the US conflicts with my (casual) understanding of the process. Indeed, supposedly we have already admitted refugees from Syria or nearby after less delay than you mention. Besides, there are reports of the refugees bringing TB and, what was it, measles into the US. Good vetting would stop at least TB and likely measles.

On your spirit of the US Constitution and immigration, I hope you don't believe that that spirit means we necessarily should admit people. My understanding is that the usual legal immigration process is very long, slow, and careful, ballpark 10 years, and that's fine with me.

> What makes you any more right then the centuries of people that expressed that opinion before you (and about a markedly different culture from today at the time, as well)?

I don't accept the idea that the US should continually foster a long term melting pot. Instead the US should admit people when has a really good reason to do so. Now the usual reason seems to be that the candidate is extremely well qualified, and that has been the case with immigrants I've known. One I know is from France, is a darned good mathematician, a student of Choquet, a member of Bourbaki. Glad to have him!

> The problem here is that Trump, given behavior from a judge he doesn't like, latched on to the most likely reason, or at least the reason he felt comfortable discussing on national television, being because of the judge's heritage.

Well, at least the heritage, but maybe also some of the judge's political stuff. But, again, we have to be careful: Trump was not saying that all judges with Mexican background would be unfair to him. Instead he said that, from the judge's ruling, this judge was clearly being unfair and then looked for the judge's motivation and noticed the judge's background, interests in pro-Mexican political causes that conflict with some of Trump's campaign positions, etc.

Maybe Trump is correct. Maybe Trump is trying to defend himself against a campaign season political attack (e.g., consider the plaintiff law firm). Maybe Trump is just trying to do his best as a defendant. Maybe Trump is looking for media attention. Even if Trump is just blowing smoke, I suspect that he is within his rights. But I don't think that Trump is racist.

> As to what their culture is like apart from that, I don't think your opinion matters.

No, sadly my opinion likely does matter: We don't want new ghettos where police are afraid to go. Supposedly there are such in Europe now.

Even if in the past we had Native American, African, Irish, Italian, or Chinese ghettos, we are not obligated to have more ghettos now, Muslim or otherwise.

> Should we target Islam, or the actual dangerous groups within it?

Of course, we don't want to target all of Islam. But apparently we very much need to target some groups within Islam.

Of course there is the issue of the open border with Mexico: Anyone who can get to Mexico can just walk across the border -- no vetting of any kind.

You seem to be for immigration unless there is some really strong reason to say no. Basically I'm for saying no unless there is some really strong reason to say yes. For Muslims, I'm especially eager to say no if only because their culture is so darned different that they typically are darned slow to assimilate. If some Saudi prince wants to go to Harvard, maybe okay. But some Saudis who want to learn to fly the big jets, fly, yes, land, no, no thanks.

There are a lot of people in most of the more industrialized countries I can admire and would welcome to the US, maybe as citizens, certainly as visitors. In many other countries, generally, no, and nearly all the Islamic countries are in that category not really just because they are Islamic (although that concerns me) but because they are backward, too close to or actually just Medieval. Admit people from backward countries?

That's just botheration we in the US don't need.

> I don't want to call radical Islamic terrorism devoted to an international enemy of the US, e.g., ISIS just a religion.

It isn't just a religion, it's a paramilitary group. Exclude them because their part of a paramilitary group, or part of a sect of Islam that carries out illegal actions where a majority participate or support those actions. And if the group is large enough that it's hard to get a good idea on the numbers that support, that's a good clue we aren't identifying the factions well enough.

> Your description of how refugees get vetted on their way into the US conflicts with my (casual) understanding of the process.

My description also provided a reference, a politifact article, which directly linked to the state department's own guidelines.

> Indeed, supposedly we have already admitted refugees from Syria or nearby after less delay than you mention. Besides, there are reports of the refugees bringing TB and, what was it, measles into the US. Good vetting would stop at least TB and likely measles.

References? I can't address a "supposedly" without something more substantive to go on. All to often, headlines about things like those are alarmist on purpose, either by media agencies to drum up attention (and thus money), or from people with a specific agenda who don't look too closely at the details (or worse, purposefully omit relevant information). It happens to both sides, and it's why it's important to really look at the situation, not go off headlines. For example, the results I'm seeing about Syrian refugees and measles are the problem they are creating in the Middle East and Africa, not the US. Perhaps you would be interested to know that 10-15 million people in America are already infected with Latent Tuberculosis[1], which is what the reports of Syrian refugees is referring to.

> I hope you don't believe that that spirit means we necessarily should admit people.

No, but not doing so isn't economically in our best interest. I'm merely stating that if people are allowed in, filtering by religion seems to have real constitutional problems to me.

> pro-Mexican political causes that conflict with some of Trump's campaign positions

If you're talkign about the La Raza group he was a member of, perhaps you'll find this[2] of interest (I'm not a regular reader of Politifact, but it keeps coming up as what looks like a less biased source in my searching). Here's a snippet:

Our search of the Nexis newspaper database found an episode in 2004 when the association wrote a letter calling for the cancellation of a popular Los Angeles reality television show in which illegal immigrants competed for the free services of an immigration lawyer to apply for a green card. The show "functions as a magnet to encourage people to enter this country without documentation," the letter said.

How do you classify a statement that jumps to race as the reason behind actions when the evidence to support it is shaky at best?

> We don't want new ghettos where police are afraid to go. Supposedly there are such in Europe now.

Europe often has a very different view of and attitude towards immigration and refugees. Wall them off, keep them from affecting the country and culture. The US has historically had a very different approach, which is to integrate them as much as possible. There will be some cultural cross contamination, but it's ended up being a very successful, useful, peaceful and economically profitable approach so far. Ghettos happen when a population is repressed and constrained (and that's how it happened here with black ghettos too).

> Of course, we don't want to target all of Islam.

If you aren't planning to target all of Islam, then don't throw around the terms Islam and Muslim without futher qualification as to what type of this larger group you are referring to. Please reread your prior comment's paragraph that begins with "Second, Islam is a long way from being just a religion." How, when you've explained all the problems with Islam as a whole, as you see them, am I supposed to assume you're only referring to things we should do to stop certain groups? This is the problem with the rhetoric. People would be justifiably upset if in a conversation about white supremacists, all of a sudden the discussion shifted to the problems with white people.

> Of course there is the issue of the open border with Mexico: Anyone who can get to Mexico can just walk across the border -- no vetting of any kind.

Whether it's true or not, and I take issue with the characterization of the process and how easy it is, there appear to be less Mexicans immigrating, and less South Americans immigrating as well (which would likely come through the Mexican border). I'm finding it hard to square it being so easy to cross with the industry of people that charge multiple thousands of dollars per person to get them across safely. Why would people pay for something if it was as easy as you make it sound? Also, to clarify, we do not have an open border. It may be policed less in some areas than in others, but it is not open. There are plenty of numbers at the DHS's Yearbook of Immigration Statistics site[4].

> You seem to be for immigration unless there is some really strong reason to say no.

Yes, because there are many benefits. There's only debate whether illegal immigration is more of a draw or a gain, regular immigration is almost always viewed as a net positive from an economic standpoint.

> For Muslims, I'm especially eager to say no if only because their culture is so darned different that they typically are darned slow to assimilate.

Do you have a basis for that belief? It doesn't appear to be true[5]

1: http://www.aafp.org/afp/2009/0515/p879.html

2: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/...

3: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know...

4: https://www.dhs.gov/yearbook-immigration-statistics

5: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/trumps-baseless-assimilatio...

> References? I can't address a "supposedly" without something more substantive to go on.

Correct. I need more references. No joke.

I don't know much about Islam. Take dress codes: I don't know if the Burka is demanded in all Islamic countries, ..., and the same for the full list of what is said to be the case in, say, Saudi Arabia.

I've spent a LOT of time gathering information on politics since Trump announced a year ago. I've got a lot of info nicely organized on my computer, but I could have more.

I will have to leave the gaps in my references, details, etc. at least for now.

For Trump, I like him, a lot. He's convinced me. But, I have some concerns -- all IMHO:

(1) He exaggerates. Sometimes its harmless, but maybe not always.

(2) I'd like details, especially on the economy.

But here's the position I take: Trump's a big picture guy. Apparently he's done well with this in business. So, as the big picture guy, he delegates to others and, then, expects them to make the big picture real. Maybe that's really what the President must do. But his big pictures are super tough to evaluate for being good plans. All my best guesses and IMHO.

So, in the end, I have to trust his judgment, determination, seriousness, smarts, management abilities, leadership abilities, sincerity, ability to learn, etc.

There are some small topics where I have enough in references and primary sources to push back against some of the attacks on Trump, but no way can I do that for the full range of issues in the campaign -- that would be a full time job and I already have one, my startup.

IMHO your contributions here are exceptional, in particular way above the content of all the mass media I've ever seen.

For me, on immigration, I'd like us to enforce the laws and processes we have long had, e.g., the one Trump's wife Melania described that she followed.

For immigrants or refugees from the Mideast, for now, mostly for what I want just say no and otherwise be quite careful.

For the contribution Muslims might make to the US, for now I've lost patience and just don't see the gains as worth botheration to be careful, etc.

Or, the US has been essentially at war with a lot of Muslims since 9/11/2001, and I've lost patience. I don't want to hear about their Fatwahs, Jihads, violent Imams, car bombs, exploding suicide vests, IEDs, burkas, chopping off body parts, mutilating girls and young women, executing people for something they said about Allah, etc.

As a US citizen, I owe Muslims who are outside the US and not US citizens nothing and have a perfect right to want to forget about them or, if they attack us, defend ourselves.

You are hoping for more benefit for the US from immigration than I am.

But I don't think that Trump is racist. And I don't agree with Altman's post, and he didn't give much in references either. Your writing is much more solid than Altman's!

> I've got a lot of info nicely organized on my computer, but I could have more.

I hope the info is sourced, well. It's not just about how much info you have, or what it says, it's about how trustworthy and accurate it is and how unbiased it is together. It's relatively simple to have completely correct statements that through simple omission of relevant info can complete change the calculus. I find locating trustworthy information is the real challenge, and even then, it's rarely without it's problems if you find a good source from the other side.

> For immigrants or refugees from the Mideast, for now, mostly for what I want just say no and otherwise be quite careful.

That's your prerogative, and obviously you aren't along in that view.

> But I don't think that Trump is racist.

Well, to clarify, I don't think he is either. I do think he's pandering to people that harbor feelings bordering on racism. I think his persona is carefully calculated and does not reflect his real thoughts and opinions. I think Trump University was a complete scam (the documents they didn't want shown are fairly damning). I also think if was not a good omen as to what his presidency might entail (and completely inappropriate) that he decided to use his pulpit to go after a judge who he disagreed with.

If you want the liberal side of this, I recommend John Oliver's show Last Week Tonight. He likes to go fairly in-depth on things (but of course it's going to be biased). He goes quite deep into the Trump University topic[1]. It's worth a watch, if for no other reason than it's amusing, and gives you the liberal points on the issue, which you can use to research whether there's something relevant that was left out so you have an answer to the questions raised (if you don't already).

To me, he comes across as a very, very successful con man. Even if I agreed with more of his stances, I just don't feel I can trust him on anything. I truly believe he will say whatever it takes to become president, with little or no intention of following through. Or, to be clear, far, far less intention on following through than your run-of-the-mill career politician. I think his speech is damaging to the nation as it creates divisions and fear-mongers. To me, he's everything I dislike and mistrust about the media dialed to 11. Needless to say, we've come away with fairly different opinions of the man. ;)

> IMHO your contributions here are exceptional, in particular way above the content of all the mass media I've ever seen.

I appreciate that, but really all I did was respond to your specific points and try to keep it civil. :) I enjoy rational discourse, and I was actually far less versed on the specifics of Trump before our back-and-forth. All the items I cited were found as I tried to look up the items you presented. My default stance is that all stories presented by the media have an agenda, so they rarely present an accurate picture of events. I try to remember this to keep me from making strong statements regarding issues where my primary source of information is the media, and if I want to use them in some statement here in a strong way I'll try to do a quick search for what looks like a good less biased source (because unbiased is a pipe dream. Even if you find it, you can't be sure).

Have a nice day! :)

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcID-LxYFwA

My computer directory on Trump is mostly just primary sources, that is, URLs at YouTube of complete speeches, rallies, interviews, transcripts prepared by C-SPAN, Time, NYT, etc., stuff pulled down from Trump's Web site, etc.

Trump University -- Calling it a university is a bit much. I heard his description of what it was -- that sounded okay. There is a role for education that is closer to practice than in the usual universities -- I used to be a prof in a relatively good B-school and can have some sympathy for what Trump claimed he was doing. But such a thing has to be buyer beware -- actually, much the same for anything in education. My guess would be that Trump started his university mostly for making money, enhancing his brand, and, maybe, getting leads on some hiring. Was there some high pressure selling? Maybe. That's pretty standard for for-profit education. There were some interviews with some people that claimed to like the courses, found them useful, and made money with them. Those students looked like relatively mature business people. I can believe that to get a lot of financial benefit from the real estate parts, would have to be good in the business of real estate or at least willing to work hard to be.

IMHO, Trump has been in business; one pillar of his success has been publicity to build a brand; in this, he is good at tooting his own horn, relatively loudly; he's nearly always selling, say, ABC, always be closing. He has admitted that he exaggerates, but he did say "harmless" exaggerations. Maybe some of the exaggerations are not so harmless.

If he wins, and I certainly believe he will, especially after his Clinton Cash speech, which I believe is just his first of a continuing flow of shots at Hillary (and I suspect her legal problems will keep her off the ballot in November -- I suspect that the FBI is building a rock solid case with just the right charge to bring), I believe that what he will do will be an okay attempt at what he's promised considering that his promises were from someone selling hard, ABC, with some exaggeration.

For improving on ObamaCare, he has already outlined his ideas, and it seems that the main idea is just to let insurance companies sell across state lines and craft policies quite narrowly targeted, a few customers at a time. So, you pay for only what you need and get a relatively good price on that. And maybe he will ask the medical profession to publish price lists. A lot of people will believe that that will beat ObamaCare and, thus, have Trump keep his promise.

For jobs, broadly I believe that there really is a lot he can do. One reason he can be "the greatest jobs president" is timing -- we're about ready to come out of The Great Recession. The economy still needs some help coming out, but I believe that Trump can supply that.

For bringing jobs back, I have to suspect that he can but it will be a quite slow process, for much progress, all of his first term. Why? Because businesses will have to get started, and the labor costs can't be so high too few people will buy the results.

But there are other reasons he can be a great jobs president -- we have about 95 million people out of the labor force.

Another reason: He will say "drill, Baby, drill" and "all of the above" on energy supplies.

Another reason: Rummy said this week that in the 1950s we were spending about 10% of GDP on the military and are down to, what was it, about 4% now. Well, Trump may take us back to 10%, and that will create a lot of jobs, say, like Reagan did when he spent a lot on the US military.

Lowering taxes will help getting the economy going and create jobs.

How to balance the budget? Get the economy going, get people better jobs so that they pay more taxes, put a lot of the 95 million back to work, etc. Don't forget the tariffs. So, get a huge flood of new tax revenue. Does this arithmetic add up? I suspect that he will mostly MAKE add up but not easily. To have this arithmetic add up, he will be constrained.

If he slaps tariffs on imports, then he might create some inflation. I suspect that effect will slow his ability to do much of what he wants in the economy.

Maybe he has some good economic advisers who have outlined a plan that will likely work.

Enforcing the immigration laws? Sure, he can do that right away.

Export illegals? Make a lot of progress with just one word, e-Verify.

I wish we knew a lot more about just what and how Trump will do things, but I doubt we will learn much more before the election.

If Hillary runs, I suspect that there won't be much left of her after Trump beats up on her from now until election day.

Trump is a tough, smart cookie who is good at winning -- I believe he will win against Hillary or whomever he Dems run.

But I don't think that Trump is really running a scam.

> My computer directory on Trump is mostly just primary sources, that is, URLs at YouTube of complete speeches, rallies, interviews, transcripts prepared by C-SPAN, Time, NYT, etc., stuff pulled down from Trump's Web site, etc.

Those are primary sources if you are trying to confirm what Trump said, but they do nothing to indicate if what Trump said was correct.

> Trump University -- Calling it a university is a bit much. I heard his description of what it was -- that sounded okay.

I'm much less interested in what Trump says about it than what the documentation says about how it was actually run. I really do advise you to look into this issue closer. Here's something to get you started[1][2] (it has a fairly obvious anti-trump stance, but there are plenty of facts to garner from it).

First, he has no idea who his "handpicked" instructors were, even though that was supposedly a big selling point. Instructors had official scripts to go off in which they talked about dinners with Trump.

The brief, filed in federal district court in San Diego, further asserts that Donald Trump admitted under oath that he retains no real estate techniques beyond what has been published in his books. In other words, students who paid as much as $60,000 to Trump University over the course of a year could have gotten the exact same information through a $10 book purchased on Amazon.

Students in the program’s introductory three-day seminar were told to use their break times to double or even quadruple their credit card limits and were asked to fill out financial statements so they’d be prepared to finance lucrative real estate transactions. Instructors then used those higher credit limits and financial information to pressure the students into enrolling in Trump University’s $34,995 Gold Program.

Trump University sold “one year apprenticeship” programs for $1,495 that were in actuality a three-day workshop and a 1-800 number to a “client advisor.”

Even though students were told they would get to have their picture taken with Trump, usually (possibly every single time, I'm not sure there's a record of him ever showing up) that ended up being with a a cardboard cutout of Trump.

> There were some interviews with some people that claimed to like the courses, found them useful, and made money with them.

The only ones I've really heard of so far were people that were interviewed before the course ended, and expected to receive additional help from the course (contacts/placements, etc) ended. They were incentivized to not speak ill of the course they still hoped would help provide some return on the money they spent. I don't have a source for that though, so if you have something contradictory, it may be more accurate.

> we're about ready to come out of The Great Recession.

We've been out of that recession for years. The unemployment rate is very low[3]. It's a mistake to assume that coming out of a recession means that everyone will get an equivalent job and make the same amount of money as before. In this case, real household income is less in many cases, which is not good. That's not a factor of unemployment though (as the numbers show), but from lower paying jobs replacing previously higher paying jobs. Any policy to "create jobs" that doesn't address this isn't going to do much good, IMO.

> I wish we knew a lot more about just what and how Trump will do things, but I doubt we will learn much more before the election.

I find it troubling that you, and many other people, accept that. I don't think anyone should accepted as a valid candidate that purposefully avoids specifics in favor of wide, general, unverifiable statements. The United States is not a business. The Presidency is not a business-like position. There is very little overlap between a businessman and a politician, and the skills needed, IMO. For one, the President doesn't have that much power. Their biggest effects are to have a public voice, veto bills (if not overturned!), and to try to spur the legislative branches into motion. Want to build a wall? You should be looking towards your Congressmen and Senators, since it's not going to happen without them.

1: https://theintercept.com/2016/03/04/donald-trumps-sworn-test...

2: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432010/trump-university...

3: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

> they do nothing to indicate if what Trump said was correct.

That's right. For plans for the future, being "correct" is asking a bit too much, but we should also have some good audits or at least good details on the plans. I believe that we are quite short on audits or details for Trump's plans for the US with him as POTUS.

I've been for Trump since last fall or so, but I know we don't have nearly enough good details. But what the heck am I to do? To me, the other candidates look much worse, on details and more.

Last fall I thought that I wanted the details, but as voting citizens we nearly never get those. Sometimes politicians deliver -- JFK said we'd put a man on the moon and return him safely to earth and did. Bush 41 said that Saddam's invasion of Kuwait "would not stand", put Schwarzkopf in charge, and, as at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKi3NwLFkX4

the results were brilliant.

Obama said he would "fundamentally transform" America, the US, or some such, but not in any way I'd want.

So, sometimes I like what politicians do, but usually I don't.

For unemployment rate, I was drawing partly from some Bureau of Labor Statistics material and discussion as at

http://themusingsofthebigredcar.com/lets-cut-the-crap-unempl...

There he has a big plot of labor force participation rate. We're talking 90+ million people who could, presumably in principle, be working but now out of the labor force. If you take his judgment seriously, then the situation, to be technical, sucks. He also mentions BLS data U-6 and U-7, and I have yet to look up those and I didn't see links to them. But I believe that the official 5% unemployment rate is lying with statistics, i.e., maybe is literally true for a particular definition that may at times be an okay definition but definitely is not now.

Net, on unemployment, I don't think that the real rate, with a reasonable definition, is 5% or anywhere near that. Maybe Trump's 20% is correct or even too low. So, one hope for the economy, deficit, standard of living, etc. is to get the "labor force participation rate" up, way up.

On Trump University (TU), good to know that in NYS he claimed to be operating a university without a NYS license. So there is a way to stop misuse of university.

For the point that there wasn't anything in the TU courses couldn't find in Trump books, okay. Quite generally there isn't much of any value in education not already in books. So, that situation about has to hold for TU also.

Your references have Trump claiming his instructors are "handpicked" by him personally. Right, that seems to be a lie. I did see a video of a few guys, 2, 3, maybe a few more, who claimed to have learned some valuable material TU about how to make money in real estate. Okay, maybe a few people did. Maybe there was some content in the courses.

To me, TU looks like an example of my guess about how Trump has done a lot of his smaller businesses: He has a broad, big picture idea, gets some people, and has them try to make the idea work. One of the keys to the idea is the Trump brand. Then the people Trump hired charge forward. If they make money, don't lose big law suits, and don't get too much bad publicity, then Trump regarded the project as successful. Call it business. For the customers, it's buyer beware. From what I've seen of the for-profit education industry out there, TU seems to fit right in. For the selling, sure, look at the famous movie scene from Glenn Garry Glenn Ross

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Lf8GtMe4M

So, selling in business is permitted to be just like that and sometimes is. So, maybe much of the selling of TU to students was like that.

A concern: One of your video clips has Trump selling TU and to me he looks and sounds very much the same as he did in his rallies and interviews during the primaries. He's good at sounding sincere: He sounded sincere for TU but said things, e.g., "handpicked", that conflict with what was in the deposition transcript you referenced. And during the primaries he sounded similarly sincere. That's a concern -- I need to upgrade my sincerity filter.

So, instead of Trump I should have backed one of the 16 Republican candidates he beat? I liked them less than Trump -- have no reason to trust them any more than Trump. I should vote for Hillary or Bernie? They can sound sincere, too, but to me the details, such as I can find them, look a lot worse than Trump's, and I agree that Hillary is a terrible crook and should go to jail for her violations of the rules and laws about handling classified information. So, maybe I should wait for Batman, Superman, Captain America, or John Wayne? Not promising, either.

So, one reason I have on my computer as primary sources what Trump said is to have, for later, means to write critical blog posts, with the primary sources and solid references, if Trump fails to deliver on his promises. Thin soup if Trump is lying. Not a lot of recourse.

Do I know that Trump's plans for jobs, the deficit, taxes, the wall, trade negotiations, negotiations with Iran, economic growth, protecting the US from radical Islam, rebuilding the US military, etc. are solid, doable, realistic, feasible? I wish I did, but I don't. And similarly for Jeb!, Cruz, Rubio, Carly, ....

What should I do about TU, Trump Steaks, Trump Vodka, etc.? It was business. If it was bad enough, then he'd be in jail.

Sure, I'd like a solid contract with a candidate for POTUS, but we don't have those yet. Lacking a solid contract, I'd like details. There are some, at a high level that don't guarantee much, at Trump's Web site. I'd like some examples of where our trade deals are bad, what good trade deals would look like, and the chances of getting good deals -- I don't have that. I'd like some really careful numbers, quarter by quarter, on the economy, budgets, taxes, revenue, deficits, interest rates, and inflation, but, again, I have no way to get those. Maybe the Fed staff can do some useful things with such macro economic modeling, but maybe they can't, either.

So, what can I do? What can any citizen or voter do? What did voters do for Ike, FDR, ..., Lincoln, ... Washington? Try to read character. And now we have what should be some advantages. Do I like our accuracy in reading character? HELL NO. Heck, I liked Romney, but recently I've concluded that he's a total turkey. How such a total turkey could have done that well in business and in MA politics I can't understand, but he looks like a turkey now.

For Trump: He's energetic. He's paying for nearly all of his campaign with his own money. Nearly any day in nearly any state, he can get 30,000 people to show up for one of his rallies -- i.e., he can build consensus and, e.g., thus get Congress to go along. He can get tens of millions of people to watch on TV and will likely do that again in the three or whatever debates with the Dem candidate -- again, he can get people to watch; he can build consensus. It appears that he wants the convention to add publcity and brand; if so, then that could help him get Congress to go along. I agree with him that the media is deliberately deceptive, disgusting, dangerous, and I'm pleased that he pushes back on them really hard -- and he's the only US high office candidate who does that. And, thus, maybe some of the newsies will actually dig into his details, plans, etc. to give us what we need but don't have now. He seems to be one heck of an effective manager: His small team did really well in the primaries. Think for a minute about the planning, details, contracts, arrangements, publicity, security, etc. for rallies for 10,000 -- 30,000 at a pop, all across the country. How the heck to do that, with a small, green staff?

Or, to me, Trump is the least bad, by a large margin, but, still, by a much larger margin, less than I wish we had and knew before we vote.

After all that, I've got my startup to work on.

> But I believe that the official 5% unemployment rate is lying with statistics

It's not lying with statistics, there is a definition for who is considered employed and who isn't. It's important to track who has decided they want to work but aren't (unemployed) compared to those who aren't employed and are not looking (retired, caring for a relative/child). These are well defined terms[1] that are used in the unemployment and labor force participation[2] numbers. From what I can tell, if a person has not looked for a job in 4 weeks, then they are considered not participating. But it's not done there, they also ask if they have looked in the last 12 months, and why they stopped, to try to identify people marginally attached.

Note, there is some thought that this could be the baby-boomers retiring[3], which account for larger demographic than others through a quirk of history.

Employment has a fairly complex definition in this respect. Do I think the participation rate matters? Yes. Do I think we are necessarily back where we were before the recession? No. Do I think we are in a recession? Definitely not, based on GDP growth[4]. That much of this growth isn't going to help those that need it is a separate problem, and not necessarily helped by focusing on the employment rate. Quality of employment matter a lot.

> Net, on unemployment, I don't think that the real rate, with a reasonable definition, is 5% or anywhere near that. Maybe Trump's 20% is correct or even too low. So, one hope for the economy, deficit, standard of living, etc. is to get the "labor force participation rate" up, way up.

The problem is none of these numbers are qualified. If you don't accept the definition of unemployment put out by the US government, that's fine, but you can't credibly quote another number, using different criteria, without defining that criteria. Does 20% include everyone that could work? Quite a few (93.3% of those not in the labor force) don't want to work[5].

> For the point that there wasn't anything in the TU courses couldn't find in Trump books, okay. Quite generally there isn't much of any value in education not already in books. So, that situation about has to hold for TU also.

True, but I think it's a bit different if you are the person who wrote the books,and you also have a course for thousands of dollars to teach you "real-estate secrets", then I don't think it's wrong to expect that you have something worth that extra money, otherwise the implication is that there's something new and actually secret that you are imparting, not the same old information you've already published.

> Maybe there was some content in the courses.

I don't doubt there was some content in the courses. There has to be something for people not to immediately report them as frauds (but not much, people don't want to believe they just spent thousands on a very bad investment). The problem is that the purpose of the courses was not to teach, but to try to pump them for more money, which is made clear by the handbooks and procedures the teachers were meant to follow.

> To me, TU looks like an example of my guess about how Trump has done a lot of his smaller businesses...

If you're making a case that he'll increase corruption in government by not correctly vetting those he chooses to work on a problem, and giving very little oversight, you're making a good case. ;)

> So, instead of Trump I should have backed one of the 16 Republican candidates he beat?

I'm not espousing you choose a particular candidate, just that you look critically at all of them, and all their claims. For me, this places Trump at the bottom. I don't like how he rides negative sentiment for popularity, and I don't like how

> I liked them less than Trump -- have no reason to trust them any more than Trump. I should vote for Hillary or Bernie? They can sound sincere, too, but to me the details, such as I can find them, look a lot worse than Trump's

I'mnot a big fan of Clinton, but I see her more as a career politician that has a hard time connecting to the populace, but as someone that does intend to do good.

Bernie is probably the most sincere politician any of us have seen in decades. Unfortunately, some of his ideas aren't really feasible. It's moot now.

> and I agree that Hillary is a terrible crook and should go to jail for her violations of the rules and laws about handling classified information.

I think as a career politician she's focused more on doing what works to get stuff done, and that probably entails ignoring what she saw as some of the smaller, unimportant rules both on purpose and through ignorance. What I think is likely, is that after this happened, a scary amount of congressmen and senators that had previously unused government email addresses all of a sudden started using them. That she used one isn't damning to me at all. That she may have covered up stuff after the fact is troubling, and could quite possibly be true. I at least expect my politicians to be competent enough not to be caught (heh), given that I think they all have things to hide, not matter how small (how many laws do you break driving to the store?). Trump doesn't get a pass on this though, the only group I have less trust in to admit wrongdoing instead of cover it up is Corporate America.

> So, one reason I have on my computer as primary sources what Trump said is to have, for later, means to write critical blog posts, with the primary sources and solid references, if Trump fails to deliver on his promises. Thin soup if Trump is lying. Not a lot of recourse.

That's a good reason! I tend to think he'll check moderate his claims later though, so he can always point to the more moderate version and say "hey, that's not what I was saying at the end". It doesn't really matter if he's vocal about it. As it is, he's known for having a multitude of (sometimes conflicting) stances on issues[6]. I tend to think that lets people choose the stance the agree most with and assume that's what he means, and ignore variations they may not agree with, regardless of when the fall on a timeline.

> So, what can I do? What can any citizen or voter do? What did voters do for Ike, FDR, ..., Lincoln, ... Washington?

Look at past public (governmental) service. Washington was a general in the revolution, and a leading figure. Lincoln was a Congressman. FDR was a Senator. Each had quite a while in public service before becoming President. I think that's a very important way to determine what type of politician one will be as President, because I don't think high level political offices like all these listed are like any other job. The pressures are different, the power is different. I would have much fewer reservations about Trump if he'd been in some public office for a while and his behavior there could be used to counteract his public persona, which doesn't instill confidence in my regarding his abilities to work with others as a politician.

> After all that, I've got my startup to work on.

Fair enough. Good luck!

1: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#nilf

2: http://www.bls.gov/bls/cps_fact_sheets/lfp_mock.htm

3: http://qz.com/286213/the-chart-obama-haters-love-most-and-th...

4: http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year

5: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/14/more-and-mor...

6: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-dona...

> That she used one isn't damning to me at all.

Well, the biggie issues are (A) she had some super woop de do top, top, top secret info in some of those e-mails and (B) it appears that, via some sloppy password handling, etc. her e-mail server was easy to hack. And it may have been hackable otherwise. The combination of (A) and (B) could be much worse than awful: E.g., from the info in her e-mails, Russia, China, NK, Iran, etc. could ask "How the heck did the US know THAT? We have a leak, human intel, spies, electronics, something, and we need to discover what and plug it." If we had spies, then they could be killed or rendered useless. Supposedly some of the info in her e-mail traffic was really bad to let out.

One point you made is that for better vetting Trump, we should have seen him for some years in public service. With the generally low opinion of politicians, maybe we are not missing much, but you may be correct. E.g., in the eyes of the Republican party voters, Trump just totally knocked the socks off 16 politicians with histories of public service in politics. That is, the voters didn't think much of the records in public service of Jeb!, Rubio, Cruz, etc. Obama was an IL state senator and then a US senator -- hmm.

For an example of what you did suggest, I REALLY like my Congressman Dr. Chris Gibson, Colonel US Army, Retired, but he is resigning as he promised in his self-enforced term limits to teach. I want him for VP.

On sloppy management standards, you may have a point: Trump is promising to relax a lot of regulations, rules, etc. E.g., for the EPA, he says that he wants clean water and air. While I regard the EPA as infested with radical, OCD, earth-worship Greenie psycho, sicko, wackos, and maybe used by Obama for shakedowns, we've done a lot to clean up the environment beyond just water and air. If Trump is as sloppy managing government projects that might add dirt to the environment as he was managing TU, that could be bad. But, again, TU was business -- intended to be a profit making for-profit educational venture.

I don't know why the heck Hillary is in politics. Maybe as a college sophomore coed she wanted to save the world, but that was a long time ago. In some ways she's just really bright, but somehow it appears that still she's disconnected from reality, so much that she is unable to be effective and, instead, is just dangerous, from HillaryCare, ..., Benghazi, her speeches, Clinton Global Initiative, etc. Tough to believe that someone could be so bright in some respects but such a train wreck in others, and it took me a long time where I "paid full tuition" to understand that about humans, but it's fully true: It's fully believable and, sadly, not very surprising that she can be really bright but, still, in a lot of the rest of life, just a train wreck -- which to me it looks like she is.

I don't think that Trump is a racist, xenophobe, or misogynist, but you have raised some interesting respects for which Trump should be vetted. Sadly, the media won't do that.

For a recession, sure, the official definition is for the time on the way down, three quarters in a row of less GDP or some such. Then once the GDP quits falling, we say that the recession is over! Lying with statistics, or at least with a goofy definition. For the people, we are out of a recession when the GDP gets back where it was. With that definition, we are still in the recession of 2008, and that is serious because a lot of people are hurting. Also it's serious because 2008 was 8 years ago, and the Great Depression lasted only 12 years. Net, Obama hasn't known how the heck to get us out of the Great Recession.

My impression of the employment situation is that it sucks, that is, with some exceptions that apply to only a tiny fraction of the population, it's nearly impossible for a person to be hired, say, to support a family -- high school graduate, college graduate, professional school graduate, mid career middle class worker, etc. For another sign of a sick economy, the birth rate is too darned low -- literally we are going extinct. That is, family formation sucks. From all the data I've seen, the fraction of the work force that wants a job but can't find one is somewhere in 20-35%. That's a Great Depression number. The only reason we are not in a Second Great Depression is massive fiscal stimulus, massive monetary stimulus, and the social safety net.

E.g., GDP is hardly growing. But, there is more: We are now so afraid of the banking system blowing bubbles that the banking regulators have nearly put commercial banking out of business. In a sense, it appears that we are going for a cash instead of a credit economy. One thing Trump can do to get the economy going is to get banking regulations like they were before the more recent changes.

Here is some good news: Since Ike, we in the US have suffered terribly from a lot of really totally brain dead POTUS decisions: Viet Nam. Fumbling with the oil crisis. The inflation that caused the S&L crisis and the 22% interest rates. The bubble blowing of 2000 and 2008. If Trump is correct, the horrible trade deals, e.g., NAFTA, letting China into the WTO, and just playing pocket pool as our trade deficits soared, plants closed, etc. Then the Greenie nonsense. Then Gulf War II. Then ObamaCare. Sarbanes-Oxley and killing off our commercial banking system. The open borders nonsense.

We could be a LOT better off if we just quit being so just totally brain-dead stupid. All of that is well within what can be fixed with just Trump's common sense.

There is another way to get the economy going: Send everyone a check for $1000. Wait one quarter. If that wasn't enough, then do it again. Soon enough it will work.

To me, especially after Trump's speech this week on Clinton cash, Benghazi, e-mail, etc., it's Trump in the White House in January. Okay. Now maybe the thing to do is to vet the heck out of him and, starting in January, monitor the heck out of him. Too bad the mainstream media, even when they hate Trump for whatever reasons, can't write meaningful material on Trump. Your writing, since you do give some references, although not all of those references make solid cases, is much better than the MSM.

We put up with the disasters of Obama, W, and Clinton. We might do really well with Trump.

You might consider asking those of us with Muslim backgrounds on HN such questions. Your conversation seems to presume none of them are on here.

> We don't want new ghettos where police are afraid to go. Supposedly there are such in Europe now.

Do you have any examples please?

IIRC, supposedly now in Paris. I should have a good reference to a primary source, but I'm just an interested citizen, not in the media, not part of a campaign, and trying to my startup.

All I can say is I heard it in the media and suspect that some Google search of recent weeks should show some examples.

Your interest in examples is excellent -- now if we could get NYT, WaPo, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc. always to do that ....

This Australian news report investigates one such enclave in Sweden, said to be one of dozens such zones across the country. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42jpuXJPk0w

> Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the judge presiding over the Trump university case, is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. La Raza is a group that advocates for a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants.

This is completely irrelevant, because most the judge's rulings that Trump is upset about occurred before Trump flip flopped on immigration from his former support for a path to citizenship to his current opposition.

also because the issue is that trump himself said the judge is unfit due to his ethnicity.

thirdly,

> La Raza is a group that advocates for a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants.

this quote implies that the judge is incapable of being an impartial public official, incapable of performing his job.

You seem to be confusing two organizations that both have "La Raza" in their names. My understanding is that the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association is a pretty standard professional affinity group (like ACM-W: https://women.acm.org).

Do you have a link to an article or policy document from the La Raza Lawyers Association that supports your claim?

Concerning the California La Raza Lawyer's Association (Judge Curiel belongs to the San Diego branch) and inflammatory comments by its founder:

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/06/09/whites-go-back-eur...

Concerning the 2014 San Diego La Raza Scholarship Fund and Judge Curiel's participation on the selection committee that awarded a scholarship to Ricardo Elorza, self-described as "a boy from Oaxaca, who did not know English and is undocumented"

http://sdlrla.com/scholarship/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/La-...

>I can go on and dismantle every other premise in this article using data and logic, but I will stop here.

is this r/cringeanarchy?

> the majority of the violence is perpetrated by the protesters that show up to Trump rallies and not the other way around

So what? The point is not the protester's behavior -- it's the fact that Trump encourages them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com