# Trump: no wall



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Trump announces there will be no border wall. That was quick.


----------



## atrp2biz (Sep 22, 2010)

However, there will be one in New Brunswick!

http://themanatee.net/trump-says-no-wall-on-canadian-border-except-for-new-brunswick/


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

LOL.............that is "bigly" good.


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

Seriously? So is he already backing out of his platform promises before even being sworn in?? What's next?


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

I think andrewf is kidding - though I have to admit that I googled it. 

Congressional lawmakers plan to repeal the definition of _wall_ and replace it with "_a minor extension to an existing border fence_".

ETA: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-wall-idUSKBN135175


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Source? There's nothing available. This would be big news.


----------



## atrp2biz (Sep 22, 2010)

But isn't the wall just a metaphor for tightening immigration policies?


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

No, it's a big-*** wall on the border. A wall is a wall, not a metaphor.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

*The wall just got ten feet higher*.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

Most people don't take the 'wall' literally.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Graffiti artists will all be moving to the southern US...........great news.

Also the US will call for a world wide ban on selling ladders, shovels, vaulting poles, bulldozers and trampolines to Mexico.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The logistics of building a wall across the entire southern US is just ridiculous.

A great deal of land would have to be seized from US landowners under eminent domain laws. That should be very popular.

Geography makes the wall almost impossible to build, without great expense and engineering costs.

The wall would need to be constantly patrolled by hundreds of thousands of border guards. It would have to be continually maintained.

It would have to be lit up at night and nearby security stations built. Anyone living near the wall would see their property values plummet.

A physical wall is just one big really stupid idea.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

wraphter said:


> Most people don't take the 'wall' literally.


Really.

When is a wall not a wall? When Trump promises one.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trump's hope now is to surround himself with useless people ....so he can blame them for nothing getting done.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

sags said:


> The logistics of building a wall across the entire southern US is just ridiculous.
> 
> A great deal of land would have to be seized from US landowners under eminent domain laws. That should be very popular.
> 
> Geography makes the wall almost impossible to build, without great expense and engineering costs.


Really? Not that I'm for it, but it's literally just a wall. I've seen estimates of a couple of billion. The US GDP in 2016 will be in excess of $18 trillion. Let's be realistic about what is feasible, and what is good or bad policy.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

While visiting the White House he saw the new wall Obama built around the grounds and said "hey that's a good idea. Let's give America the protection you gave yourself".


----------



## Argonaut (Dec 7, 2010)

Check out the effect a border fence had on stopping migrants get into Hungary. Makes a strong case for the wall. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_border_barrier 

The ebb and flow of history is always repeating itself. As empires reach their peak the need to keep out the "barbarians" manifests itself. The Romans went through it (Hadrian's Wall) and the Chinese did with their Great Wall. I don't have a strong opinion one way or another on Trump's Wall, other than that I like the "Mexico will pay for it" and "10 feet higher" angle. At the very least I hope it is beautiful so that it can become a cultural icon like the aforementioned.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A wall would have to follow the twist and turns of the Rio Grande River and there are great elevation differences. 

Here is a view of a very tiny portion of the wall's route. The total length of the wall isn't a straight line. It would be many times longer than the straight line distance across the southern border if it followed the path of the Rio Grande River.

One option would be to build the wall inland a few miles to make it a straighter wall, but then it would intersect the middle of US cities, towns and private property and it would also accede total access of the Rio Grande River to Mexico.

Note how the current river/border between Mexico and the US juts in and out of the US and Mexico land around it.

I doubt Mexico will agree to build the wall on any of their territory.

This wall would be much longer than the Wall of China.

Construction of parts of a wall have long since been approved, but nobody has even begun work on it.

View attachment 12769


https://medium.com/@kevinoleary/tru...rn-facts-of-geography-a027b02ddfc1#.x3rfwulbn


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> The logistics of building a wall across the entire southern US is just ridiculous.


The Chinese did it a couple centuries ago..'to keep the foreigners out" , so it is possible given the determination and
manpower/machinery to do it. Cost is the biggest factor these days. The hundreds of billions spent to create a 1000km
wall could be better spent on other things the US needs these days. Like affordable health care.



> A great deal of land would have to be seized from US landowners under eminent domain laws. That should be very popular.
> Geography makes the wall almost impossible to build, without great expense and engineering costs.
> The wall would need to be constantly patrolled by hundreds of thousands of border guards. It would have to be continually maintained.


Well, it could create jobs for the illegal Mexicans already in the US. Build the wall then train them to protect the US-Mexico border wall from their countrymen. Of course like the other expression these days//"build it and they will come"
that can apply to "Trumps wall"as well. it's like drawing a line in the sand. 



> It would have to be lit up at night and nearby security stations built. *Anyone living near the wall would see their property values plummet.*
> A physical wall is just one big really stupid idea.


Mostly desert out there in the parts of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas that border on Mexico. 
They have border security fences already in places. That doesn't stop the Mexican smugglers who tunnel under the security fence.
might take them longer to tunnel across, but you may also remember the British sappers in WWI made lots of tunnels under the German lines to lay the biggest mines known to man, short of an atomic bomb explosion.
Germans always suspected but when the mines went off, they never knew what hit them.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It costs a fortune to build a pipeline. Imagine what it will cost to build a ten foot wall on flood plain lands along the Rio Grande.

And then someone in Mexico plants some dynamite and blows a hole in it.

The wall is a joke. Trump might start it to give people jobs digging holes, but it will never be completed.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

hadrian's wall is in england & had nothing to do with the collapse of the roman empire on the continent

the great wall of china didn't do much to protect or enlarge the empire either

we hear that trump has also dropped the idea of hiring a special prosecutor to jail hillary clinton plus he's planning a personal pilgrimage to Mecca some time after inauguration so that he, too, can get on Allah's good side

re the jobless, he's training melania to say "Let them eat Cake" when she receives at state banquets

.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> It costs a fortune to build a pipeline. Imagine what it will cost to build a ten foot wall on flood plain lands along the Rio Grande.



3200 km wall 10 feet high by 10 feet wide x $10 million per km...hmm..calculator please...and that's not counting building new guard posts along it's length. 


> The total length of the continental border is 3,201 kilometers (1,989 mi). From the Gulf of Mexico, it follows the course of the Rio Grande (Río Bravo del Norte) to the border crossing at Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua and El Paso, Texas; westward from that binational conurbation it crosses vast tracts of the Chihuahuan and Sonoran Deserts to the Colorado River Delta, westward to the binational conurbation of San Diego, California and Tijuana, Baja California, before reaching the Pacific Ocean.[6]


It would have to be about a third of the length of the Great Wall of China. Probably be able to see it from outer space as well.


> The length of the Great Wall of Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) was *5,500.3 miles (8,851.8 kilometers)* from Hushan in Liaoning to Jiayuguan Pass in Gansu on April 18 in 2009.





> And then someone in Mexico plants some dynamite and blows a hole in it.


or simply tunnel under it...



> The wall is a joke. Trump might start it to give people jobs digging holes, but it will never be completed.


If he scraps NAFTA, he may be able to invite and hire all those unemployed Mexican factory workers to work on it..
a Donald Trump "make work project".


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

The truly important thing is:- working class voters chose one of their own to represent them in Washington.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_China's wall consists of separate parts built over centuries at a human cost that's unthinkable today._

Facts about "the wall" and why Trump will abandon the idea, just as he is abandoning the repeal of Obamacare.

That was all just "locker room election talk".

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-border-wall-plan-unrealistic-useless-experts-035850777.html


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Mexico would benefit greatly by the building of a wall.

The Mexican company Cemex owns more than half the quarries along the route.

Mexico won't be paying for the wall. The US would be paying Mexico for the concrete.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

sags said:


> The logistics of building a wall across the entire southern US is just ridiculous.
> 
> A great deal of land would have to be seized from US landowners under eminent domain laws. That should be very popular.
> 
> ...


sags , you are talking complete BS! Just check on the map USSR borders and realize that "wall" was built around all borders!
imho, this "wall" is a great idea, for ages I was surprised why US doesn't set it up


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> 3200 km wall


 USSR had 20,000km wall


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

olivaw said:


> The truly important thing is:- working class voters chose one of their own to represent them in Washington.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

gibor365 said:


> USSR had 20,000km wall


Where? I passed through Soviet borders and saw no walls.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

My bad. There was a wall. Here is a photo of said wall on the Polish-Soviet border https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Файл:Dźwiniacz_Dolny_-_Old_border_02.jpg


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

mordko said:


> Where? I passed through Soviet borders and saw no walls.


So do you think that "wall" means some huge concrete structure or something like Carcassone?!


> A* wall is a structure that defines an area, carries a load, or provides shelter or security.* There are many kinds of walls:
> Defensive walls in fortification
> Walls in buildings that form a fundamental part of the superstructure or separate interior sections, sometimes for fire safety
> Retaining walls, which hold back earth, stone, or water
> ...


This Border barriers between countries (like img published above ) is a Wall!


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

recent example






it's also called "wall" or "barrier"... Such "wall" can be build on US - Mexico border without issues...




> It is estimated that between 2000 and 2010, U.S. taxpayers spent $90 billion on securing the U.S.-Mexico border.
> .....
> CBP estimates that only 44 percent of the U.S.-Mexico border is under “operational control.” They also estimate that for every one illegal immigrant they catch, 3 get through


Obviously US need normal wall/barrier to limit Mexican illegals


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

I am thinking that a little hedge like on soviet borders is totally going to help against evil Mexicans.

Still, the wall should help. Given that far more Mexicans have been leaving the US than coming in, it should help to keep them in.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> Mexico would benefit greatly by the building of a wall.
> 
> The Mexican company Cemex owns more than half the quarries along the route.
> 
> Mexico won't be paying for the wall. The US would be paying Mexico for the concrete.


Now that is making more sense. Building that 3200 km wall with Mexican cement and labour would ensure that US will owe Mexico for years and years
just like their debt to China..which will never be repaid.



> Total Federal Government Debt in 2017.
> At the end of FY 2017 the gross US federal government debt is estimated to be $19.5 trillion, according to the FY18 Federal Budget.


Add another trillion or two to the Great Emperor wall..Trump should finance it himself, put his name on it as he has on other things he owns and charge a toll to the Mexicans to go through it.:rolleyes-new:

Even if it was election campaign rhetoric, it shows he needs a reality check on a lot of things
he hasn't a clue about. The Mexican drug cartel will laugh as they tunnel under "Trumps Wall"...


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Trump did not have the backing of wall street. The establishment was hated, Talk of the wall brought Trumps name into the media with little money


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

gibor365 said:


> So do you think that "wall" means some huge concrete structure or something like Carcassone?!
> 
> This Border barriers between countries (like img published above ) is a Wall!


That's what Trump and his supporters have been talking about. A wall, not a mere chain link fence that 20 second with a bolt cutter would get you through. 

At any rate, a wall was never going to have any meaningful impact on immigration, unless US closes the border entirely.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Reporters interviewing Trump supporters after the election said that when he asked them about "the wall" they all laughed.

They all told him the same thing. They voted for Trump because of economic despair. They viewed Clinton as more of the same.......doing nothing for them. They don't trust the Republican establishment either. They don't care about a stupid wall.

They said they viewed both main stream parties as working for Wall Street bankers and were doing nothing about the growing wealth and income disparity. They were struggling in their everyday lives and nobody in government seemed to care or do anything about it.

In that light, their votes for Trump make a lot of sense. They view him as the "outsider" who owes nothing to anyone.

Clinton has been part of a "all talk no action" Democratic Party for years, even though she wasn't in a position to do much.

People didn't like but chose to ignore everything stupid that Trump said, because they believe he is their only chance at having someone who will actually make changes in Washington.....hence the popularity of his "drain the swamp" message.

If Trump cancelled his idea for a wall...none of them would care. It isn't why they voted for Trump.

There is an old axiom in politics that the voters are never wrong. Maybe the rural folks have it right after all.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Voters primarily concerned about immigration and islam tended to support Trump, while those primarily concerned about the economy tended to support Hillary.

A run-down of exit polling data:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bowmanmarsico/2016/11/09/the-exit-polls-2016-a-to-z/#23f3091150f3


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Of course concerns about immigrants grow in reaction to poor economy. The states that voted for Trump have been economically devastated.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Check out some of the feminist twitter sites since Trump won the election.

Full of nothing but "catch phrases" and "memes",....."gatherings" at coffee houses and seminars.

Hillary Clinton played to all that urban angst and hand wringing.

Rural folks deal with real issues, and their most real issue is the economy, the economy, the economy.

They don't give a fiddlers fart about a wall. They figure strengthening the border patrols would be just fine.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Is their problem really immigration?

Seems to me it's more about the rise of China as a manufacturing powerhouse and automation. Manufacturing output in the US is at all time highs, it just relatively jobless/capital intensive now.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> That's what Trump and his supporters have been talking about. A wall, not a mere chain link fence that 20 second with a bolt cutter would get you through.


 It depends on what kind of "chain link fence" , far not all "fences" can be cut with bolt cutter... Israeli fence so far is very effective


> absolute halt in terrorist activities has been noticed in the West Bank areas where the fence has been constructed


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Is their problem really immigration?
> 
> Seems to me it's more about the rise of China as a manufacturing powerhouse and automation. Manufacturing output in the US is at all time highs, it just relatively jobless/capital intensive now.


Their problem is the rise of robotics. Many manufacturing plants are so highly automated that they will generate very few unskilled jobs. A new auto plant may hire a couple of hundred programmers and engineers and a couple of dozen unskilled workers. The rust belt is not coming back. Steel jobs are not coming back. 

The wall might slow the flow of drugs - or it might not. Everybody knows that it won't be built. Congress is going to approve a minor addition to the fence and the whole thing will be forgotten.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

olivaw said:


> Their problem is the rise of robotics. Many manufacturing plants are so highly automated that they will generate very few unskilled jobs. A new auto plant may hire a couple of hundred programmers and engineers and a couple of dozen unskilled workers. The rust belt is not coming back. Steel jobs are not coming back.




true, steel jobs & many rust belt jobs are not coming back. 

but what's next? nothing but service jobs for so many north american workers?

i see a renaissance in individual artisanal production but the work product is extremely expensive by ordinary salary standards. For example one lady in mont tremblant sells gorgeous handknitted knee socks for $65 a pair. I believe the sheep each have names & live in her garden.

her sweaters are $250-800.

nice, but a call centre employee earning $40k a year is not going to be able to clothe herself in handknit mont tremblant when it snows outside. Instead she'll buy online, one of those $65 down jackets made in asia.

.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

gibor365 said:


> It depends on what kind of "chain link fence" , far not all "fences" can be cut with bolt cutter... Israeli fence so far is very effective


Israel's fence consists of 3 barrier systems, it's high tech and not at all cheap. Near population centres it tends to be a rather high concrete wall - as well as equipment and barbed wire.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> true, steel jobs & many rust belt jobs are not coming back.
> 
> but what's next? nothing but service jobs for so many north american workers?
> 
> ...


Many service jobs may be replaced by robots too.  

Elon Musk believes that a government funded *universal income* is the only solution. Presumably the central bank would need to assign a value to everything that was produced by the robots and issue enough cash (or credits) to pay for it. 

People are going to want unique things, like the Mont Tremblant sweater so there will be a place in the world for artisans and craftsmen. There will always ber entertainers and artists too, and many will be paid handsomely. 

Wealth disparity is going to be with us for a long long time. Some people will succeed in the new economy and others will not. We can eliminate starvation but those people who suffer the psychological impact of being part of the disadvantaged subset might become dangerous.


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

olivaw said:


> Many service jobs may be replaced by robots too.
> 
> Elon Musk believes that a government funded *universal income* is the only solution. Presumably the central bank would need to assign a value to everything that was produced by the robots and issue enough cash (or credits) to pay for it.
> 
> ...


Real good for Musk-not good for the average citizen-a universal income scheme possibly can work somewhere like Switzerland, it definitely can be a major problem for economies based around massive immigration of unemployable humans, like the USA system and especially Canada-OTOH I would love your plan if I was Galen Weston or a number of other bigwigs.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Nelley said:


> Real good for Musk-not good for the average citizen-a universal income scheme possibly can work somewhere like Switzerland, it definitely can be a major problem for economies based around massive immigration of unemployable humans, like the USA system and especially Canada-OTOH I would love your plan if I was Galen Weston or a number of other bigwigs.


Hugh Segal has been promoting a guaranteed annual income for years. Segal was trying to replace all government programs with a single program. Musk is wondering what to do when our future robot overlords eliminate all of the unskilled jobs. 

Immigration may become a non issue. If anything, we might all be trying to move to Mexico for the warm climate and white sand beaches. I hope there's no wall in the way.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The way I understand universal income proposals is that companies will earn higher profits using robotics and tecnology to replace labor costs, and the government will tax the productivity and distribute the income to people who aren't working.

If that isn't it...........I don't know where all this money is supposed to come from.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trump is scaling back on the wall proposal. Trump wants to spend a trillion on infrastructure and implement term limits.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell doesn't want to spend on infrastructure or implement term limits.

The Washington Post has noted that changes to Trump's website listed policies are already changing.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> The way I understand universal income proposals is that companies will earn higher profits using robotics and tecnology to replace labor costs, and the government will tax the productivity and distribute the income to people who aren't working.
> 
> If that isn't it...........I don't know where all this money is supposed to come from.


Companies are just legal fictions, at the end of the day it all flows back to a person. Shareholders (higher dividends), employees (wages) or customers (lower prices). The important thing to remember is that the pie is getting bigger all the time, we're just arguing about how to cut the slices.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Right, but it takes money to own shares, and if there are no employees there will be no customers.

That is the great problem now faced with global free trade. Lower prices are great, but they don't help people with no money.

Warren Buffet touched on this during his upcoming interview on CNBC. 

He said free trade is an overall benefit to society, but a person who doesn't have a job or any money doesn't rub their hands in glee because they are saving money on a pair of socks or underwear in Walmart.

Free trade has greatly benefited the asset holders (shareholders) who tend to already have money, but it has been a disaster for most people.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

sags said:


> Free trade has greatly benefited the asset holders (shareholders) who tend to already have money, but it has been a disaster for most people.


That's a demonstrably false claim. The exact opposite of the truth. The whole post war growth worldwide has been fuelled by skyrocketing trade. Prosperity, level of life, including among the poor have gone up dramatically. Recently for the first time trade started lagging thanks to protectionism. This is the point when growth has stalled and this is when the growth in prosperity has stalled. 

And yes, globalization distributes benefits unevenly. Manual industries shift to countries with cheaper labour. That's why Japan is now wealthy, they were the first. Then Koreans. Then a whole range of other countries, like Mexico started to live much better. And a billion of people in China and India. 

Protectionism is ultimately the argument for having a much smaller pie but eating it all by yourself and selfishly screwing poor nations by making sure they stay poor forever. It actually hurts poor people the most. Of corse it hurts poor people in your country too who get hurt the most in the resulting recession.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Trump has been protectionist since the 80s. He claimed that Japanese car manufacturers were stealing US money (by providing high quality cheap cars which Americans preferred). He claims that China is committing the greatest fraud in history (by Americans buying Chinese goods).

If and when Trump starts a trade war, we will find out exactly how it impacts the level of life. There are examples from the first half of the 20th century. Canadians as a small trading nation are particularly dumb to support protectionism.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

Our upcoming trade deal with Europe couldn't be more timely considering the direction the US seems to be heading.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> That is the great problem now faced with global free trade. Lower prices are great, but they don't help people with no money.
> 
> He said free trade is an overall benefit to society, *but a person who doesn't have a job or any money doesn't rub their hands in glee because they are saving money on a pair of socks or underwear in Walmart.*
> 
> Free trade has greatly benefited the asset holders (shareholders) who tend to already have money, but it has been a disaster for most people.


Of course "The Donald" will fix all that..he is committed to "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN'..

Heard he will go ahead with his plans (once he inaugurated to appoint Rudy Giuliani as Attorney General to set up a special prosecutor to go after Hillary and her emails and Clinton foundation. True to his campaign promises.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I don't think Americans who lost their jobs care how well the Chinese, Koreans, Indians or Japanese are doing.

If Trump doesn't put the brakes on unfair free trade......he will be a one term President.

Maybe NAFTA without Mexico. Some say Trump isn't that fond of Mexicans anyways.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

sags said:


> I don't think Americans who lost their jobs care how well the Chinese, Koreans, Indians or Japanese are doing.
> 
> If Trump doesn't put the brakes on unfair free trade......he will be a one term President.
> 
> Maybe NAFTA without Mexico. Some say Trump isn't that fond of Mexicans anyways.


They possibly don't but that doesn't make it unfair. Quite the contrary. Competition is fair. If anything, Americans are unfairly advantaged as are Canadians. You live in a rich free country, there is nothing stopping you from training and getting a job.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The government doesn't provide a whole lot of help for people to retrain into a new job.

Want to go into the trades............find a tradesman to teach you and then come talk to us about signing up for an apprenticeship.

Already trained and want to start a small business.............see your family about a loan.

Been there and still doing it, and our son is proficient in several trades already at 30 years of age. 

It is still a financial struggle for him to get airborne and if it wasn't for our help he wouldn't have gotten this far.

That is why Americans are so angry about free trade. The government gave away their jobs and left them to fend for themselves.

Free trade politicians are only now recognizing they underestimated the negative effects of free trade and didn't prepare for it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I like one comment Trump's campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway made to Sean Hannity, actually I liked a lot of her comments to Hannity.

She said Trump will renegotiate unfair trade deals, and he is going to put a lot of money into providing funding for people to retrain.

She said......not everyone is college material and a lot of people have been left behind.

She also shot down Hannity's plea that Trump only hire people who were totally loyal to him.

Conway said........Mr. Trump is loyal to people, but owes nothing to anyone and he wants the best people in the right jobs.

Hannity grimaced and didn't look like a happy camper.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

olivaw said:


> Many service jobs may be replaced by robots too.
> 
> Elon Musk believes that a government funded *universal income* is the only solution. Presumably the central bank would need to assign a value to everything that was produced by the robots and issue enough cash (or credits) to pay for it.
> 
> ...



yes i agree.

although the last sentence above is worrisome. 

what's even more worrisome is how dangerous the disadvantaged subset will become when they find out that Trumpenomics has failed. When they see that not only did they never get any jobs but now they also have a gummint which has destroyed many of the social supports, charters of rights & civil liberties put so painstakingly in place since WW II.

.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

sags said:


> The government doesn't provide a whole lot of help for people to retrain into a new job.
> 
> Want to go into the trades............find a tradesman to teach you and then come talk to us about signing up for an apprenticeship.
> 
> ...


And you think that trade wars and the resulting recession are going to help? How exactly? Keep in mind, that a huge chunk of Canada's GDP are exports to the US. Also, if US companies are stopped from investing abroad, there will be far fewer jobs in Canada. It won't help your son, other than by making sure that there is poverty and desperation all around.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> Keep in mind, that a huge chunk of Canada's GDP are exports to the US. Also, if US companies are stopped from investing abroad, there will be far fewer jobs in Canada.


 Without Canada's export to US and US investing in Canada, I don't understand how Canada will survive at all! Free trade with Europe is nothing! We probably gonna have more European cheeses , salami, beer etc (that is good ), but what we gonna export to Europe? Maple syrup?! All commodities Europe can get from Russia and much cheaper.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

*Donald Trump admits some of his Mexico border wall may be a fence, as he vows to immediately deport 3m illegal immigrants*

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-immediately-deport-3million-illegal-immigra/



> Trump made clear that he plans to push ahead with the deportation of illegal immigrants with criminal records, claiming that there are between 2 and 3million in the US.


Don't know how it will be implemented, but imho it's a good idea


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

No surprise.

But who believes what a politician says, especially during an election. They all seem live by the motto 'why spoil a good promise by delivering on it". Trump is not exception. Expect backpedalling, waffling, and outright denial on many promises.

And did he say exactly how he is going to round up 3 million and actually get these illegal immigrants to the border? By plane, bus, walk? Could be as many as 10,000 plane loads or 50,000 bus loads. No. As empty headed as the people who believed that he would actually do this.

And what about the screams from loyal Republican business owners who count on these illegal immigrants for cheap labour and higher profits? Those folks certainly don't want the apple cart turned over. And who want to pay $25 to get their lawns cut instead of $10. by an illegal?


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> And did he say exactly how he is going to round up and actually get these illegal immigrants to the border. By plane, bus, walk?


 This is why I said that don't know how it can be implemented 



> And what about the screams from loyal Republican business owners who count on these illegal immigrants for cheap labour and higher profits?


 Trump is talking about immigrants with criminal records, so doubt there will be many screams...


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

One thing that Trump has the power to do all by himself without the Congress is to start a trade war. It also happens to be something he has consistently supported even since the 80s, years before he became a politician.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

gibor365 said:


> Without Canada's export to US and US investing in Canada, I don't understand how Canada will survive at all! Free trade with Europe is nothing! We probably gonna have more European cheeses , salami, beer etc (that is good ), but what we gonna export to Europe? Maple syrup?! All commodities Europe can get from Russia and much cheaper.


Indeed. All the Canadians cheering for Trump's protectionism are grade A idiots.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

that does sound a bit strange. Why does russia have to import so much food from europe


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Why does Canada import bananas.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Why does Canada import bananas.


I usually shop in Highland Farm , almost all fruits are imported.... majority of cheeses (the good ones) too, I wish that will be more imported salami/kolbasa (local is crap).... even lamb I buy imported from NZ...


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

andrewf said:


> Indeed. All the Canadians cheering for Trump's protectionism are grade A idiots.


Mindboggling. 

Not only that, most people on this board are investors. We know exactly what protectionism does to investments from the 1930s.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Why does Canada import bananas.


Because

yes, we have no bananas?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The "benefit" of world trade is putting Canada in the poor house.

_For the April-June quarter, Canada's trade *deficit* with the world widened from $6.4 billion in the first quarter of 2016 to a record $10.7 billion._

Canada had a surplus with trade to the US. 

All Canada needs is a free trade deal with the US, where we are more or less equal partners.

_As a result, Canada's trade *surplus *with the United States narrowed from $2.6 billion in May to $1.8 billion in June.
_
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trade-loonie-1.3708854


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I put the "free trade is good for working people" hat on the shelf right beside "corporate tax cuts create jobs" hat.

They will be collector items some day.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> I put the "free trade is good for working people" hat on the shelf right beside "corporate tax cuts create jobs" hat.
> 
> They will be collector items some day.


You can always sell your hats on "Fleabay"...there are lots out there that will pay big money for a hat, especially red ones, that have the writing
[Lets} "Make America Great Again", these will become collectors items after he gets impeached further down the road.:rolleyes-new:


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

gibor365 said:


> *Donald Trump admits some of his Mexico border wall may be a fence, as he vows to immediately deport 3m illegal immigrants* ...
> Don't know how it will be implemented, but imho it's a good idea


In terms of numbers and timings ... that remains to be seen.

In terms of "how", putting a push on that when arrests happen for those with a record - could there simply be a hand off to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)?

There's already an 866 number that is good in the US, Canada and Mexico as well as an 802 number to cover other countries for those that want to report possible illegals. That is in addition to the online form.


There might have to be some hiring and/or changes to process but it would seem the apparatus is there.


After all, there are criminal records involved so there's interaction with police, as well as possibly fingerprints available.




ian said:


> ... But who believes what a politician says, especially during an election. They all seem live by the motto 'why spoil a good promise by delivering on it". Trump is not exception. Expect backpedalling, waffling, and outright denial on many promises.


I expect he won't implement everything but he sold himself as an exception so I think it is more of a question of how far he will attempt to go.




ian said:


> ... And did he say exactly how he is going to round up 3 million and actually get these illegal immigrants to the border? By plane, bus, walk? Could be as many as 10,000 plane loads or 50,000 bus loads.


There's already an online form as well as two phone numbers to call to report illegals (one good for Canada, the US and Mexico while the other line covers the rest of the world).

Is it really that hard to believe he couldn't set the priorities for the police as well as the agency *that is already* tasked with doing this? 

Then too, when did Trump say it would be all at once, in a SWAT style sweep of the nation to fill those bus/airplane/prison bus seats?




ian said:


> ... And what about the screams from loyal Republican business owners who count on these illegal immigrants for cheap labour and higher profits?


Depends on how many working cheap are illegals ... by shifting focus to those with criminal records, he is limiting for the moment at least, who the targets are.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Indeed. All the Canadians cheering for Trump's protectionism are grade A idiots.


Any idea what Charest's talking about that Trump protectionism is an opportunity for Canada?


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Does anyone think that illegal aliens will be sitting around waiting to get picked up by deportation teams ?

Social media will follow the deportation teams around and people will scatter long before they arrive on the scene.

We had a supervisor that was making everyone's life miserable in the warehouse, so people started whistling the Andy Griffith tune whenever he was on the move. The whistling followed him everywhere through the warehouse.

It was relentless, day after day and went on for a long time, until he finally said he would leave everyone alone if they would just stop with all the ***** whistling.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> Any idea what Charest's talking about that Trump protectionism is an opportunity for Canada?
> 
> 
> Cheers


I guess he's hoping that when trump talks protectionism, he means against every other country BUT Canada.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> Does anyone think that illegal aliens will be sitting around waiting to get picked up by deportation teams ?


If they have US criminal records, they have been caught by the US police at least once, correct?
If the US police have them in custody - they are ready to for deportation, n'est pas?


Other than slowing down the release enough to verify who is and who is not legally in the US - what's the extra effort?


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I guess he's hoping that when trump talks protectionism, he means against every other country BUT Canada.


You mean like the Canada friendly US protectionism over softwood lumber? :rolleyes2:


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

How would a mass deportation of Mexican criminals affect......

Joint drug trafficking efforts by Mexico and the US DEA and Homeland Security ?

The safety and security of Americans in Mexico ?

There are always issues with the issues.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> How would a mass deportation of Mexican criminals affect ......


How are they affecting these things now?

Does Trump care?


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> How are they affecting these things now?
> 
> Does Trump care?
> 
> ...



Well, the so called Mexican criminals are in the US now, so it wouldn't affect US citizens in Mexico.

I am thinking that Americans in Mexico may be a target for some of the angry Mexican criminals who get dumped back into Mexico.

Let me put it this way. If Trump follows through with his plan, I won't be visiting Mexico or buying property there anytime soon.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Convicted criminals were already deported under Barack Obama. There are believed to be fewer than a million left. 

Trump promised two or three million deportations. The definition of criminal may be expanded to include suspected gang members, those who have been charged but not tried, and those who are in the country illegally (which is all of them). 

Some police chiefs don't cooperate with the feds anyway.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I've heard predictions that Trump will deport less than Obama. I would say Trump supporters' heads will explode if this comes to pass, but I expect that their capacity for cognitive dissonance will be unfathomably high.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Mr. Gorbechev....tear down this wall.

Ronald Reagan 1987

Mr. Trump.........build that wall.

Republicans 2016


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

sags said:


> Mr. Gorbechev....tear down this wall.
> 
> Ronald Reagan 1987


Just to remind you, Gorbachev agreed to destroy the "wall" , because US promised that NATO won't move one inch to the East..... and check where is NATO now!


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

gibor365 said:


> Just to remind you, Gorbachev agreed to destroy the "wall" , because US promised that NATO won't move one inch to the East..... and check where is NATO now!


Gorbachev didn't destroy the Wall. The government in Eastern Germany fell apart.
The government in Russia ceased to exist. There was nobody in charge.

The people in the Baltics and Ukraine want to have a better life than they would under Russian oppression. They want what we have in the West: freedom from fear,freedom of speech and a higher standard of living. Russia also oppresses its own people. Their standard of living is much lower than ours.It is a mafia state that has serious internal problems. For example there was the assassination of the opposition politician Boris Nemtsov right in front of the Kremlin
as he walked home with his girl friend.

Many Russians have voted with their feet and emigrated to the West. The flow of migrants is not going the other way. 

We in the West do not have to be subjected to Putin's continuous death threats and provocations.

The US and its allies should deter this criminal regime at a minimum and ideally work for regime change. The Russian people deserve better.
We in the West deserve better . Don't be seduced by Putin's superficial charm. He will break any agreement he makes.


----------



## Argonaut (Dec 7, 2010)

sags said:


> Mr. Gorbechev....tear down this wall.
> 
> Ronald Reagan 1987
> 
> ...


There's a difference between keeping people out and keeping people in. Even the liberal elites in their gated communities understand that.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> The Russian people deserve better.


 Don't decide for Russian people... and US/NATO shouldn't decide for them.

Putin popularity is more than 85%
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/02/daily-chart-4


*Fall of the Berlin Wall: It was thanks to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that this symbol of division fell*
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...il-gorbachev-that-this-symbol-of-9829298.html


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

gibor365 said:


> *Donald Trump admits some of his Mexico border wall may be a fence, as he vows to immediately deport 3m illegal immigrants*
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-immediately-deport-3million-illegal-immigra/
> 
> ...


Great idea for Canada as well, I think anyone who isn't at least a landed immigrant should be deported right away if charged and convicted of a crime.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Isn't think already the case?


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> Well, the so called Mexican criminals are in the US now, so it wouldn't affect US citizens in Mexico.
> I am thinking that Americans in Mexico may be a target for some of the angry Mexican criminals who get dumped back into Mexico.


It may depend more on whether the criminals see them has having the money to make it worth their while. That's the way the El Salvadorean gang members who learned their trade in US prisons then were deported by the US are operating.

Like a lot of criminal activity - it is mostly risk, reward with "what do I have to lose?"


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I've heard predictions that Trump will deport less than Obama. I would say Trump supporters' heads will explode if this comes to pass, but I expect that their capacity for cognitive dissonance will be unfathomably high.


I don't know ... if there's some public deportations and some PR, maybe they will ignore any fact finding - similar to during the campaign?
Or if their good jobs come back, maybe they will choose to ignore the change.


Cheers


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^ We know the jobs aren't coming back. The days of labour intensive low-skilled manufacturing with high wages are over.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Obama already deported most of the convicted criminals. Trump will need to expand the definition of _criminal_ to top it. 

A number of cities have declared themselves to be sanctuary cities. (A sanctuary city is a city in the United States or Canada that has adopted a policy of protecting illegal immigrants by not prosecuting them solely for violating federal immigration laws ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city). Some governors have promised to shield state residents from deportation.

Deportations will probably be more show than substance. Few votes care about details. 800,000, 3 million, they won't care.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

olivaw said:


> Obama already deported most of the convicted criminals. Trump will need to expand the definition of _criminal_ to top it.
> 
> A number of cities have declared themselves to be sanctuary cities. (A sanctuary city is a city in the United States or Canada that has adopted a policy of protecting illegal immigrants by not prosecuting them solely for violating federal immigration laws ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city). Some governors have promised to shield state residents from deportation.
> 
> Deportations will probably be more show than substance. Few votes care about details. 800,000, 3 million, they won't care.


The criminals get deported. So what? They come right back again.



> Shooting of Kathryn Steinle
> 
> On July 1, 2015, a man fired a gun on Pier 14 in the Embarcadero district in San Francisco, California. The bullet struck 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle in the back, causing her to die two hours later at a hospital. A homeless man, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, was arrested and charged with murder.[1]
> *Lopez-Sanchez is an illegal immigrant from Mexico who had previously been deported on five different occasions.*[2] The shooting sparked controversy and political debate over San Francisco's status as a sanctuary city. President-elect Donald Trump has cited Lopez-Sanchez in support of his proposal to deport foreign nationals living illegally in the United States, and mentioned Steinle during his acceptance speech at the Republican national convention.[3][4]


Politically correct immigration in action.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

What I don't understand about the US's stance on illegal immigration is why they allow illegal immigrants to do things that seem like they should be reserved for legal immigrants, like register their kids for school. I guess maybe it's because they need the illegals to have the economy prosper, but they need to figure out a way to let that happen legally. It's a weird, tricky situation.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

^^^

That ... and as I recall, a previous governor in California was proposing that illegal immigrants be allowed to have a legit driver's license.


Cheers


----------

