Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[russ_watters]

Op-Ed (LA Times) A presidential run by Michael Bloomberg could plunge the country into a constitutional crisis
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...-12th-amendment-bloomberg-20160225-story.html

Even without Bloomberg, it could still move into the House of Representatives if neither GOP or Dem candidate obtains 270 electoral votes.

Someone mentioned this in another thread, but I don't see how it is actually a realistic possibility: most states are winner take all pluralities in the electoral college. Do people forget Ross Perot and his 18% of the popular vote in 1992? He won precisely zero electoral votes, making Clinton's substantially less than a majority victory look like a landslide.

 

[Astronuc]

Clinton criticizes Obama’s Supreme Court strategy
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/in-south-carolina-clinton-distances-herself-from-192655901.html

KINGSTREE, S.C. — Hillary Clinton took a few moments at a town hall in rural South Carolina to criticize President Obama’s reported decision to vet Republican Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval for Antonin Scalia’s vacant seat on the Supreme Court.
. . .
She added that she’s sure Sandoval, a former federal judge, has done “some good things,” but that he’s not liberal enough for the job.

 

[russ_watters]

We do not know the future - it is not set in stone. Perhaps a Trump presidency will have silver linings we cannot presently imagine?

Probably. First I want to reiterate that I won't vote for him because I don't think he's a real person. But that said, I think if people actually look at his positions on issues (with the caveat that because he isn't real, they may not be either), they will be hard pressed to find any that fit with their apocalyptic vision of where Trump might take us. My perception is that both the love and hate for Trump are similarly void of content: both are based on emotional reactions to his circus act of provocative statements.

For example, people seethed at his "...blood coming out of her whatevrer" comment, but how does that actually translate into a bad action as President?

As with the anti-Bush and pro-Obama passions, I find a disappointing lack of rationality in peoples' judgement of Trump. Yes, I know both examples are (my perception of) Democrats' irrational passions. But the Democratic party is, historically, the passion party. Maybe the fact that that shoe is on the other foot for once may wake them up to the reality that while effective at getting votes, passion is a poor basis for picking a President. That could be a silver lining.

[edit]
Maybe we should have a companion thread to the "Why is Trump Popular" thread, where the challenge is to find rational reasons for disliking him?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Chris Christie endorses Trump
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/26/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump/

Did. Not. See. That. Coming. Maybe thinking VP?

 

[StatGuy2000]

Probably. First I want to reiterate that I won't vote for him because I don't think he's a real person. But that said, I think if people actually look at his positions on issues (with the caveat that because he isn't real, they may not be either), they will be hard pressed to find any that fit with their apocalyptic vision of where Trump might take us. My perception is that both the love and hate for Trump are similarly void of content: both are based on emotional reactions to his circus act of provocative statements.

For example, people seethed at his "...blood coming out of her whatevrer" comment, but how does that actually translate into a bad action as President?

As with the anti-Bush and pro-Obama passions, I find a disappointing lack of rationality in peoples' judgement of Trump. Yes, I know both examples are (my perception of) Democrats' irrational passions. But the Democratic party is, historically, the passion party. Maybe the fact that that shoe is on the other foot for once may wake them up to the reality that while effective at getting votes, passion is a poor basis for picking a President. That could be a silver lining.

[edit]
Maybe we should have a companion thread to the "Why is Trump Popular" thread, where the challenge is to find rational reasons for disliking him?

The problem with trying to assess Trump's positions on the issues is that at no point has he or his campaign been at all clear what his actual positions are on any issues -- from what I can see, his entire campaign consist of his circus act of provocative statements (precisely because, as you said yourself, because he's not a "real person" or a "serious person"). The few positions that he has been consistent on throughout the campaign are as follows (and which I've also touched on in the other thread on "Why is Trump Popular"):

1. Build a giant wall on the US/Mexico border, and have Mexico pay for it.
2. Abolish birth-right citizenship.
3. Deport all illegal migrants and their US-born children (note: these US-born children are US citizens, by the principle of juris sanguinis)
4. Ban all Muslims from entering the country or immigrating to the country.

Please note that all 4 positions above are direct statements coming from Trump. I can provide references for them in a separate post.

I think the 4 above positions are ample justification to provide rational reasons to dislike him.

On Position #1: (1) Building such a wall is a tremendous waste of resources, (2) There is no realistic way that the US can force or make Mexico pay for any of it, (3) The number of illegal immigrants has levelled off, with a fall in the number of Mexicans coming into the US (please see the following link from the Pew Research Centre: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/)

On Position #2: This is a non-starter, since birth-right citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Anyone seriously proposing to abolish this is, in my books, un-American (thus making Trump un-American).

On Position #3: As appealing as "kick out all illegals" may be, trying to find and deport all such illegals is simply too costly. As for deporting the children of such immigrants, see my response to Position #2.

On Position #4: This position flies smack in the face of the view of the Founding Fathers that there is to be no religious test to determine who is allowed into the US, or can become citizens to the US.

 

[gleem]

The problem with trying to assess Trump's positions on the issues is that at no point has he or his campaign been at all clear what his actual positions are on any issues -- from what I can see, his entire campaign consist of his circus act of provocative statements (precisely because, as you said yourself, because he's not a "real person" or a "serious person"). The few positions that he has been consistent on throughout the campaign are as follows (and which I've also touched on in the other thread on "Why is Trump Popular"):

He is more specific if you go to his official website.

However from what I have read most of Trump's plans are unworkable, ill conceived, or do not fulfill their desired intent. He could hardly deport 11 million illegals is 18 months even if they where lined up at the border ready to walk across. Critic say eliminating even for a week 11 M immigrants will leave millions of job unfilled in the agriculture, service and construction industries crippling them. He also fails to realize that they spend money and support local economies. His tax plan will not support his budget cuts increasing the deficit. His trade plan which include tariffs and embargoes will raise prices for Americans and may close markets to American goods.

 

[mheslep]

Op-Ed (LA Times) A presidential run by Michael Bloomberg could plunge the country into a constitutional crisis...

Law professor or no, I think Ackerman confuses "constitutional crises" with a crisis of the status quo. I suppose a status quo crisis is unlikely to grab many column inches in the LA Times.

Lawrence Tribe in the Atlantic:
"Two presidential elections have been decided in the House of Representatives and four others, including the elections of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and John F. Kennedy in 1960, have come within 30,000 votes of requiring a decision by the House. Three others, in 1912, 1924, and 1968, came close. In 1980, a victory by independent candidate John Anderson in just a few key states could throw the election into the House"

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/80oct/deadlock.htm

Carrying out the instructions of the Constitution for closely decided events anticipated in the document is not a crisis. I reserve the term for Constitutional officers who ignore the document regarding actions that are not gray, that is, issues where the SCOTUS votes unanimously a dozen times against.

 

[mheslep]

He could hardly deport 11 million illegals is 18 months even if they where lined up at the border ready to walk across.

Sure he could. The question is should he. The US deported a couple million Mexicans under Truman/Eisenhower, with a tiny fraction of the manpower employed by the government today.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2010_FactCheck_Immigration.htm

In my view, the longer the discussion addresses only the positive benefits of illegal immigration, ignoring the harm to communities or to entry level and blue collar wages, the more likely some radical action is going to become.

 

[russ_watters]

Chris Christie endorses Trump
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/26/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump/

Did. Not. See. That. Coming. Maybe thinking VP?

Really? Wait, if you didn't see that coming, how could you think he's thinking VP?

I wasn't shocked. Just picture if Christie got drunk, the types of things he might say. I suspect he'd sound a lot more Trump.

 

[russ_watters]

1. Build a giant wall on the US/Mexico border, and have Mexico pay for it...

I think the 4 above positions are ample justification to provide rational reasons to dislike him.

On Position #1: (1) Building such a wall is a tremendous waste of resources...

It is certainly reasonable to disagree with him based on that, but most people who don't like him think he's crazy. Heck, *I* think he's crazy, but I still recognize that that opinion is actually pretty reasonable. In principle it is supported by most Americans and most candidates, across party lines.

 

[gleem]

It seems for over eighty years (maybe longer) we have had an illegal immigrant problem. Over 14 different administrations of both parties and still nothing was done to curb the influx. What does that suggest? Maybe these people are needed? Even Trump said that after deporting them he would let most back.

 

[mheslep]

On Position #1: (1) Building such a wall is a tremendous waste of resources,

The relevant sections might be built for $6 billion. The payoff lies with improved blue collar and entry level employment which is terrible. One can argue the trade offs, but fence benefits are not zero.

(2) There is no realistic way that the US can force or make Mexico pay for any of it,

Closing the legal portals across the S. border for a few hours has a good chance of forcing Mexican attention. More likely just the threat could be enough. Given that 83% of Mexican exports go to the US, which US Customs can grind to a halt, they're in no position to refuse. The Saudis and Kuwaitis paid some $80 B for US efforts in the Gulf War.

(3) The number of illegal immigrants has levelled off, with a fall in the number of Mexicans coming into the US (please see the following link from the Pew Research Centre: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/)

Yes, largely caused by the recent US recession, slowly declining Central American birthrates, and a reasonable Mexican economy in recent years. As in the past, have another American boom, a Mexican economic stumble, and up goes the US illegal population by several more million.

On Position #2: This is a non-starter, since birth-right citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Anyone seriously proposing to abolish this is, in my books, un-American (thus making Trump un-American).

The modifying 14th amendment phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is not thrown-in boiler plate meant to be ignored. The American spirit of the 14th's birthright clause was bound up in making American born former slaves citizens for all time, ending contrary treatment. Americans may well decide to continue birthright as it is, but putting an end to the current 300,000/yr born in the US to illegal residents does not defacto qualify as un-American in my view.

Agree with your number 4 on Trump's Moslem ban, though here again this has been a radical reaction brought on by years of absurd negligence on the part of the government's immigration arm, the latter being the far more important issue than Trump's podium bravado. Why not say instead, "I as President will improve the competence of US immigration"? Because the public would not believe it at this point, and rationally so.

 

[lisab]

As with the anti-Bush and anti-Obama passions, I find a disappointing lack of rationality in peoples' judgement of Trump.

Fixed that for you

But the Democratic party is, historically, the passion party.

There's a saying: "Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line."

 

[Astronuc]

Chris Christie endorses Trump
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/26/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump/

Did. Not. See. That. Coming. Maybe thinking VP?

Christie is from NJ, which has a big economic dependency on NY City. Trump's empire encompasses the NY metropolitan area which includes the NE corner of NJ. I'm sure Christie thinks NJ (and himself) will benefit from the Don.

Maybe it's a NY/NJ mob thing.

 

[Astronuc]

Hillary Clinton wins South Carolina as Bernie Sanders flops with black voters
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/hillary-clinton-wins-south-carolina-as-bernie-000312859.html

Hillary Clinton 271,367 votes 73.5%
Bernie Sanders 95,840 votes 26%

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/south-Carolina

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/27/468402547/hillary-clinton-projected-to-win-south-carolina-primary

 

[russ_watters]

Agree with your number 4 on Trump's Moslem ban, though here again this has been a radical reaction...

Is it radical? May want to ask that question of a European...

http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2015/0...to-only-want-christian-refugees/#.VtMKXvkrK00
[jeez, it is tough to find now with all the anti-Trump backlash! I thought it was being debated in some of the bigger countries...]

How's that for irony?

As with much of the other rhetoric, if you rephrase it, it becomes much more reasonable. What Trump does is put the worst possible spin on it, which leaves nothing for his enemies to do to spin it!

Let's say we have a decision to make about taking in Syrian refugees. They can't come here easily (like they can walk or take a small, overcrowded boat to Europe), we pretty much have to go get them, so there wouldn't be any need to "ban" them. But what we can do is preferentially bring in people most at risk due to the violence in Syria/Iraq. And the group of people most at risk is Christians -- or broader, anyone who isn't Muslim.

 

[russ_watters]

Fixed that for you

Naa, I liked it better the way I had it.

There's a saying: "Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line."

Naa, I like it the other way: "Democrats vote with their hearts, Republicans vote with their heads."

 

[HossamCFD]

And the group of people most at risk is Christians -- or broader, anyone who isn't Muslim.

If that's intended as a general rule then it's quite inaccurate. Who's most at risk depends on the specifics of each case. A Shia Muslim in Raqqah or Mosul governed by ISIS or a Sunni Muslim besieged by Assad's forces in the Homs area is in a much graver danger than a Christian in, say, central Damascus. Even when you fix a city it's not always clear. Christians under ISIS were forced to flee in many cases, and many of them were killed. Some of them were offered a peaceful treatment if they pay the Jizzya and thus were not asked to join ISIS. Many Sunni Muslims were regarded as dissenters when they refuse to join, and those who at any point posted online a critical opinion of ISIS or used to work with the "apostate" government are in at least equal danger as the Christians.

Now of course most of those fleeing to Europe are doing so not from Syria but from camps in Turkey/Lebanon/Jordan. Both Muslims and Christians in those camps aren't in an immediate danger, but they're fleeing because they both don't have anything that resembles what you'd call a life. Those who are relatively better off/able to make the journey attempt to make it to Europe. Others have to make due with their chances outside the camps in places like Jordan and Egypt.

Is it radical? May want to ask that question of a European...

http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2015/0...to-only-want-christian-refugees/#.VtMKXvkrK00

Trump's original 'ban proposal' wasn't in the context of discussing Syrian refugees (I believe Cruz was the one who explicitly proposed to accept only Christian Syrians, but it didn't receive much attention). It was a general ban for Muslims who want to enter the US, which includes tourists, international students, academics, spouses of American citizens who happen to be Muslim, etc...

So yes, I'd say it's quite radical, but also vague and impractical.

Even though such a ban might technically affect me personally as I'm applying for postdocs including in the US (I'm an atheist, but I have an Arabic name and an Arabic ID that states I'm Muslim. Nothing I can do about either). I'm not worried about the implementation of such a ban. If Trump wins the general election (a big if IMO) I don't think he'll be able to implement it. Heck, I don't even think he'll propose it again as a president. Trump doesn't strike me as a real person, I think he just says whatever he thinks is going to increase his popularity.

As with his "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people". I'm not concerned about the actual ban (nor the Mexican wall, which in itself is not xenophobic at all and may or may not be a good idea). I'm much more concerned about the rhetoric, which I think is very harmful.

IMO Trump is an unpleasant bloke. He may not be a fascist, but he's certainly flirting with fascist language.

 

[Astronuc]

And the group of people most at risk is Christians -- or broader, anyone who isn't Muslim.

-- or broader, anyone who isn't Daesh. Shia are perhaps most at risk, followed closely by Yazidi. The Sunni Daesh consider Shia to be apostates, and hence Shia tend to be killed (although women may be taken as wives or sex slaves).

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/rm/2015/240533.htm

 

[lisab]

Interesting that a former CIA Director would chime in. When asked about Trump's statement that he would order the killing of terrorists' family members:

“God, no!” Hayden replied. “Let me give you a punchline: If he were to order that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act.”

“That’s quite a statement, sir,” Maher said.

“You are required not to follow an unlawful order,” Hayden added. “That would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...follow-trumps-orders-if-he-becomes-president/

 

[russ_watters]

If that's intended as a general rule then it's quite inaccurate. Who's most at risk depends on the specifics of each case.

You're talking anecdotes and I'm talking broad generalities. They aren't mutually exclusive -- though you stated it as a self-contradiction.

Trump's original 'ban proposal' wasn't in the context of discussing Syrian refugees (I believe Cruz was the one who explicitly proposed to accept only Christian Syrians, but it didn't receive much attention). It was a general ban for Muslims who want to enter the US, which includes tourists, international students, academics, spouses of American citizens who happen to be Muslim, etc...

So yes, I'd say it's quite radical, but also vague and impractical.

If this is the original, it was posted the day after the San Bernadino shooting, by ISIS sympathizers:
""Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said."

So, a temporary emergency response to a terrorist act. Excessive reaction? Maybe, but in context I don't think I'd go so far as to call it "quite radical".

 

[russ_watters]

Interesting that a former CIA Director would chime in. When asked about Trump's statement that he would order the killing of terrorists' family members:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...follow-trumps-orders-if-he-becomes-president/

Yeah, that one's pretty wrong and can be judged at face value for what he actually said, unlike a lot of other things that are posted as interpretations, not actual quotes. That's probably the clearest bad thing I've seen that Trump has said.

 

[HossamCFD]

You're talking anecdotes and I'm talking broad generalities. They aren't mutually exclusive -- though you stated it as a self-contradiction.

Not anecdotes. The point is that there are factors that really affect the level of risk a person is in, being Muslim or Christian doesn't seem to be one of them (unless we define Muslims the same way ISIS does). I'd regard ANYONE fleeing ISIS as someone in imminent danger, regardless of their faith. I've never seen any statistical evidence that Muslims are safer under ISIS than Christians, let alone a difference that's significant enough to justify prioritising Christian refugees. Slovakia's stated reason for taking in only Christian refugees was not that they're in more danger, but that Muslims won't fit in their culture.

In any case this point is moot now since you seem to acknowledge that Trump's proposal had nothing to do with refugees and was in fact a general ban for all Muslims in response to a terrorist attack.

So, a temporary emergency response to a terrorist act. Excessive reaction? Maybe, but in context I don't think I'd go so far as to call it "quite radical".

Fair enough. I suppose what's quite radical and what's an excessive reaction is sort of a matter of personal judgment.

EDIT: I use 'quite' in the British sense, as in 'fairly' or 'to some degree'. I suspect it carries a lot more weight in American.

 

[Astronuc]

It looks like Clinton is winning by large margins in the South, Sanders won Vermont and seems to be winning Oklahoma, and they were tied in Massachusetts, but the scales seemed to have tipped toward Clinton.

Ted Cruz won (with Trump second) in Texas and Oklahoma, but Trump is pretty much leading in the other states.Super Tuesday: Clinton, Trump Notch Big Southern Wins; Texas And Okla. Go For Cruz
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/01/468792843/super-tuesday-trump-and-clinton-eye-big-wins

 

[russ_watters]

Not anecdotes.

You said "specifics of each case" - while not "anecdotes" per se, it is the same issue: individual cases are not necessarily representative of the average/typical. However:

The point is that there are factors that really affect the level of risk a person is in, being Muslim or Christian doesn't seem to be one of them (unless we define Muslims the same way ISIS does). I'd regard ANYONE fleeing ISIS as someone in imminent danger, regardless of their faith. I've never seen any statistical evidence that Muslims are safer under ISIS than Christians, let alone a difference that's significant enough to justify prioritising Christian refugees.

I must acknowledge not seeing any statistics of any kind regarding this and largely basing this on the logic that the further the religion is from Islam the more "wrong", the bigger the threat should be. Following that logic, CNN lists a small religion I'd never heard of as being the most at risk due to it not being in the same family as Judaism/Christianity/Islam:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/08/world/meast/iraq-ethnic-groups-under-threat-isis/

In any case this point is moot now since you seem to acknowledge that Trump's proposal had nothing to do with refugees and was in fact a general ban for all Muslims in response to a terrorist attack.

I think you may have missed the point: it should be clear that proposing it in response to an ISIS inspired attack is a reflection of fear of refugees being infiltrated by ISIS like they were with some of the Paris attackers.

The qualifiers in the statement also matter: "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". Besides informing to my above interpretation this also clearly indicates that it is intended to be temporary and refined better/more specifically than just being a permanent general ban. Like many of the other examples, stripping the qualifiers from the non-quote posted earlier in the thread changes the meaning substantially, both in intent and severity.

Note that general travel bans of everyone coming from a number of African countries were proposed/discussed during the Ebola outbreak. Those probably would have been excessive too, but it should be ok to discuss them without judging someone as crazy or racist for responding excessively to a real threat. Over-reactions to actual threats are human.

Fair enough. I suppose what's quite radical and what's an excessive reaction is sort of a matter of personal judgment.

EDIT: I use 'quite' in the British sense, as in 'fairly' or 'to some degree'. I suspect it carries a lot more weight in American.

The clarification on your definition of "quite" helps -- yes, there is a bit of a language barrier there. "Quite" in Americanese means "very" or even "extremely". The British version looks like dry irony to me. "Somewhat extreme" would be (a self contradiction, but still...) more in line with what I'm thinking.

[edit]
The reality is that if we give the statement a fair shake, it is an understandable over-reaction, but would be ineffective and problematic in almost any form. But extreme circumstances tend to result in extreme reactions that don't prove effective. For example, on 9/11 the US government banned all civilian air travel for 2+days. That's an element of martial law and a violation of the Constitution in normal circumstances.

But the threat is too broad and diverse and it sleeps, so a temporary ban on religious grounds wouldn't work. But increased scrutiny of immigrants from terrorist hotbed countries is prudent IMO.

 

[Astronuc]

It looks like Sanders is leading in Colorado and Minnesota.

 

[HossamCFD]

But increased scrutiny of immigrants from terrorist hotbed countries is prudent IMO.

Agreed. I don't think many people would have any objection to that.

Discussing policies is much easier than discussing rhetoric. Sweeping statements against certain groups are disturbing and worrying. In this particular case I do think that the worries about Trump's statement are warranted.

Those probably would have been excessive too, but it should be ok to discuss them without judging someone as crazy or racist for responding excessively to a real threat.

Yes racism is a serious charge and should not be taken lightly. I personally wouldn't call anyone racist just for supporting Trump. I don't think Trump himself is racist.

I must acknowledge not seeing any statistics of any kind regarding this and largely basing this on the logic that the further the religion is from Islam the more "wrong", the bigger the threat should be.

The logic is sound and applies to many Salafist groups but not ISIS or Al-Qaeda affiliates. Christians and Jews are among the 'people of the book'. They're offered to pay the Jizzya tax or convert to Islam if they want to preserve their lives. Other non-Muslims (for example Yazidis and Druze) don't get the Jizzya option, they either convert or die. Apostates are the worst, they only get to be killed. As Astronuc pointed out, ISIS considers Shiites and Alawites as well as some Sunnis as apostates that are to be killed immediately. That's the general rule but there have been cases when Christians were killed immediately without being offered to pay the tax. You don't expect consistency from a bunch of murderous psychopaths.

The British version looks like dry irony to me. "Somewhat extreme" would be (a self contradiction

Quite.

 

[Astronuc]

Koch brothers will not use funds to try to block Trump nomination
http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-koch-brothers-not-funds-try-block-trump-010111128.html#

The Koch brothers are also smarting from the millions of dollars they pumped into the failed 2012 Republican presidential bids of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, the sources said.

Standing on the sidelines waiting.

Rep. Chris Collins: 'It's Time' For GOP To Unite Behind Trump
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/02/468937608/rep-chris-collins-its-time-for-gop-to-unite-behind-trump

Not so fast!

Rep. Scott Rigell Urges Republicans To Stand Against Donald Trump
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/02/46893...ges-republicans-to-stand-against-donald-trump

 

[phinds]

Such fun, eh?

 

[jim hardy]

Trump's position on healthcare came out

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.

That should get the lobbyists ire.

Interesting though it is contrary to some of his protectionism talk about other industrues.

Has pharma industry abused monopoly status in US ?