[dingo_bat]

>How do you reconcile his "build a wall" rhetoric

What is exactly wrong with having a physical wall which restricts illegal migration? I can think of cost, but little else.

>his comments about Gonzalo Curiel

Politicians often say ridiculous shit in order to create sensation and polarize. Trump is not unique in this. For example, Obama recently stated that buying a book or laptop is more difficult than buying a gun. Which is demonstrably false.

>his call to ban immigration of Muslims

He has taken a bit more nuanced stand recently. He says immigration of Muslims from countries known to be harboring terrorists should be restricted. I can't find a huge problem in this.

And so on and so forth. I am not an American, but it seems to me that people are needlessly hating on Trump.

[devty]

what in the world?

I'm especially appalled by your response to Trump's comments about Gonzalo Curiel. Non-uniqueness does not give pardon to his ridiculous, insensitive, and racist comment. Besides, Trump suggested Gonzalo Curiel's judgment was biased because he was Mexican - how can you claim that this is a rhetorical device akin to Obama's "demonstrably false" statement about purchasing a gun in America? What sensation did Mr. Trump raise other than bigotry and hatred of others? I don't find his comments acceptable especially because he's running for a president!

[dingo_bat]

Of course his comments are not acceptable. My only point is that all politicians show biases. This is Trump's. Just like Obama has his own bias against gun-ownership by the general public. It is the voter's job to evaluate everything and take a decision, not get reactionary just because of one or two stray comments.

As I said, I am not an American and as such I may not be very thoroughly informed on everything. Keeping that in mind, what Trump seems to say makes a lot of sense if you strip away the fluff and the style with which he says it.

[rawTruthHurts]

"What is exactly wrong with having a physical wall which restricts illegal migration?"

That's exactly what the Berlin wall was for. It wasn't ok for the western powers. For the USSR, on the other hand, it was rather fine. Didn't it?

"Politicians often say ridiculous shit in order to create sensation and polarize"

Still, editorializing is deemed as a bad thing, even here in Hacker News.

[dingo_bat]

>That's exactly what the Berlin wall was for

No. It was virtually impossible for people to cross that border legally. This is not the case with US-Mexico.

[rawTruthHurts]

"It was virtually impossible"

Nope. Not virtually, and definitely not impossible.

[MrMullen]

> He has taken a bit more nuanced stand recently. He says immigration of Muslims from countries known to be harboring terrorists should be restricted.

We already do that.