Many real estate developers will fall under the umbrella of “construction businesses” and we are providing an overview of the construction specific requirements
Without naming his opponent, what are 5 reasons to vote for Donald Trump?
Original Question: Without naming his opponent, can you name 5 reasons to vote for Trump?
UPDATE: DONALD TRUMP IS THE 45th PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! 🙂
A2A. Contrary to what many people on both sides of the political spectrum believe, though this belief, for obvious reasons is more prevalent among liberals than conservatives and independents, there indeed are quite a few legitimate reasons to vote for Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential Elections. One does not have to be a supporter of either Donald Trump, or the Republican party, to acknowledge the existence of such reasons, even if one, by virtue of his/her ideological underpinnings and/or partisan leanings, might not subjectively agree with the substance of those reasons, and therefore, of their adequacy. Speaking for myself, I am a Republican, who is strongly right leaning on most issues, but moderate on social issues—and while I don’t really like Donald Trump, I do intend to vote for him—and the reasons I have elucidated below constitute some of the reasons, which have occasioned my decision to do so.
Admittedly, many of these reasons, are reasons, in support not of Trump, specifically, being President, as much as they are about a Republican (even one, who is arguably a Republican in name only) becoming President, especially in light of some circumstances unique to the 2016 Elections, which would be determinative of the political and cultural landscape of the United States, for a period which will far outlast the four (or eight) year term of the next Presidency. It also seems, to my mind, imperative to state at this juncture that in a two-party system, of the kind extant in the United States, it would be impossible to have reasons to vote for a candidate of one party, which are completely removed from and unrelated to the positions, proposals, character etc. of the opposing candidate, and this impossibility must be kept conspicuously in the forefront of one’s mind, while reading the reasons that shall be delineated below:
- SCOTUS Appointments: The next POTUS will have the power to nominate at least one, and potentially, up to four justices to the SCOTUS. A Trump Presidency will guarantee that conservatives, and not liberals are nominated to fill up these vacancies. The Supreme Court, presently being one Justice short, has deadlocked on a plethora of highly consequential issues—including the constitutionality of President Obama’s Executive orders DAPA and DACA, which selectively waive the rigors of immigration laws to illegal aliens currently resident in the United States, race based affirmative action, the constitutionality of Voter ID Laws, among others. Many of these issues would have, had Justice Scalia been alive, been decided 5–4, with a Conservative majority—as they ought, in my opinion, to have been decided, and would be so decided, if another conservative Justice fills Justice Scalia’s seat. If you are someone who believes, as do I, that illegal immigrants must not be granted leniency, that race-based affirmative action is problematic, that Voter ID cards (which do not have particularly stringent requirements, for that matter, contrary to what liberals incorrectly purport them to have) ought to be implemented to prevent voter frauds. There are plenty of other such issues, on which the Court tends to decide along partisan lines, and allowing the Court to have an additional liberal justice would be inimical, if not outright ruinous for the country. If you are socially moderate, as I am, then you can be fairly certain that a conservative court will not necessarily overrule precedents such as Roe or Obergefell, as the respect for judicial precedents constitutes one of the plinths of common law adjudicatory systems—and their subjective disagreement notwithstanding, Justices who disagree with such holdings will not, merely on a whim, overrule those cases. This is arguably the most important and magnitudinous reason to vote for Trump—to ensure that the Supreme Court is not hijacked by progressives—something, which, in my opinion will irreparably damage the cultural and economic fabric of the country.
- Tax Plan: A Trump presidency will reduce the reliance of the Government machinery on tax revenue—as it entails tax cuts. Granted, the tax plan that Trump has espoused has changed from a single flat rate tax across income bands, to a progressive tax, albeit less, than the ones currently in force, and far lesser than the ones, which a Democratic presidency would attempt to impose. Furthermore, Trump has promised to abolish asinine taxes such as the estate tax, i.e. the tax payable on the estate of a deceased person, before it is transferred by way of bequeathment to his/her testamentary successor(s)—a tax which is unduly positioned against persons having higher assets. If you are someone who believes, as do I, that a coercive and State condoned thievery based on income redistribution ought to be phased out, as the primary mechanism of Government financing, then voting for Trump would be a sound choice. To compensate for the reduced availability of tax revenue to sustain Government expenses, the Government would be forced to adopt measures, such as (1) Reducing aid given to foreign countries (2) Shifting to non-tax revenues (investment revenues, money obtained from fines—especially those imposed for non-compliance or breach of corporate and securities laws etc.), and domestic borrowings (in the form of Treasury bills, short term and long term Government bonds etc., many of which are already employed for financing long term infrastructure projects, among others), (3) to scale back government, (4) increasing taxes on remittances sent abroad (5) reducing the contribution the United States makes to the NATO, among others. Trump has not himself explicated much concrete policy in any of these matters, but his team of financial advisors seems to be well qualified and from the finance and real estate sector, and it does not seem to be a gamble to trust in their abilities.
- Strong Enforcement of Immigration Laws: Arguably, the strongest (or in any event, the most commonly recurring) aspect of Donald Trump’s platform are his signature proposals to address the menace that is illegal immigration. While it is not unreasonable to question (as do I, for one) the practicability and real life utility of a wall along the US-Mexico border, it is not inconceivable that Trump can indirectly cause the financial burden of the construction of such a wall to be borne by Mexico.  But more importantly, and realistically, the least that Trump would do would be to repeal DAPA and DACA, cause to be prevented, the passage of any bill along the lines of the DREAM Act, etc. Further, it is likely that he would pass either through the Congressional process, or, in the event the Congress refuses to cooperate through executive orders (as President Obama and his predecessors have done, numerous times), a federal law along the lines of Arizona’s SB1070, and further, to defund sanctuary cities and force officials therein to cooperate with law enforcement to deport illegal aliens. If you believe, as do I, that illegal immigration is a massive problem (and it certainly is a massive economic drain as have been conclusively established), but are in support of LEGAL immigration—and perhaps even allowing increases therein, then, voting for Trump would be a good decision.
- Repeal of President Obama’s executive orders: One of the first tasks a new President, from a party different from that of the incumbent advents upon, is the repealment of Executive Orders passed by his predecessor. President Obama did pass a number of Executive Orders during his two terms, and while they did not amount to much numerically, in that President Obama promulgated less Executive Orders than any President since President Roosevelt (FDR), some of the Executive Orders he did pass were of enormous impact—and as a conservative, I disagree with some (but by no means, all) of them pretty emphatically—such as the DAPA and DACA, his Climate Change EO, his Minimum Wage EO etc. Furthermore, there are many supplemental “Presidential Memoranda” and “Guidance Notes” which have been passed to strengthen the effect of these EOs, or to act as standalone guidelines—and from an ideological perspective, many of these are to my mind, problematic, and hence in need of repealment. If like me, you also disagree with some of the Executive Orders that were passed under the Obama regime, and would like to see them repealed, then voting for a Republican is the recourse you must adopt—as a Democratic President is likely (and in this case, certain) to continue and augment such EOs.
- Less Interventionist Foreign Policy: Trump seems to favor a very strong “America First” approach. While some of his nativist policies could at the economical level prove to be detrimental, especially if they are not implemented in a phased manner, for the most part, less intervention translates to less defence expenditure, less monetary outflow in the form of foreign aid to nations (some of which, like Pakistan etc. do not deserve a dime in support) and these moneys thus saved could be appropriated for purposes more beneficial to Americans.
- Second Amendment Rights: Trump is more likely to adopt a relatively more gun-friendly policy, and a Republican dominated Senate and Congress are less likely to try and pass unusually harsh gun-control laws. Truth be told, I do not believe that some of the restrictions advocated by Democrats, in relation to guns, such as the restriction of the availability of assault grade weapons to average laypersons, the requirement of more stringent background checks prior to the provision of the permission to own and operate guns and other weaponry, the requirement that people on the suspected terrorist list, no flight list etc. be denied, pending judicial adjudication, the right to own and use guns etc. are nearly as problematic as the Republican party (and the NRA) purport them to be. These positions seem to be more nuanced than the position currently espoused by the Republican leadership—having said that, if you are someone, who believes that a less stringent approach to gun control would be more beneficial, in the short or long runs, then voting for Trump would be a sensible recourse.
- Miscellaneous: If you believe that in general, a Republican government would be better for America (and I do realize the nebulousness of the expression “better” in this context), than a Democratic government, then voting for Trump is a sound decision. This reason is sort of a residuary reason of sorts, in addition to those reasons which have been articulated above.
None of what I have stated above must be construed as my suggesting that Donald Trump is by any means, a person who can be christened to be an “ideal” candidate, nor must it be construed as being either oblivious or insouciant to criticisms of Donald Trump, his rhetoric and/or his policy suggestions—of which there indeed are many. Considering that the present question does not require a criticism of Donald Trump’s policies, proposals or rhetoric, I shall not delve into those areas here. Suffice to say, I myself do not particularly like Donald Trump, and am pinching my nose, so hard that I might disrupt my septum, in order to vote for him.
I believe I’ve addressed the issues adequately.
 The same can be said in relation to the discernment of reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton. Even as much as I find myself at substantial variance with her in matters of ideology, and even as much as I find her to be an abhorrent person (not that Trump is particularly enamoring either, of course), I do acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons, which could occasion one to vote for her, even while those reasons would not be adequate for me, personally, to vote for her, or for that matter, a democrat, especially, in this Election Cycle. It would be both disingenuous and intellectually dishonest for one to deny the existence objectively, of reasons, which are legitimate, which might occasion one to vote for either candidate, merely because of one’s own subjective disagreement with the adequacy or desirability of the ideological leanings and positions, policies, rhetoric and avowed objectives of a particular candidate—and such denial would be a fairly poignant marker of intellectual dishonesty and overt bias.
 Some articles explaining how this can be done:
- [The Atlantic]
- See also [Forbes]
The morality of some of these measures are certainly debatable, but that does not negate or detract from the feasibility of the proposition that Mexico can be forced to bear the economic brunt of the souther border wall.
 The Heritage Foundation has conducted a detailed study on the consequences of illegal aliens, on taxpayer money utilization. See. It would be pertinent to observe at this juncture, that California, a state with one of the highest state taxes (especially in relation to top bracket earners) also boasts among the highest illegal alien populations (25% of all illegal aliens reside in California.) See . Much of the tax-payer money in states such as this goes to subsidize the existence of illegal aliens, and sanctuary cities. Furthermore, 62% of illegal immigrants (over three-fourths of whom are from Mexico (over 50%) & Central America) are on welfare (mostly food and medicaid), compared to 30% of the natives—to put things in perspective. See (by CIS). Also, among 73% of Mexican & Central American Immigrants are on welfare (not just illegals)—compared to 12% of immigrants from South Asia or 26% from Europe. See (by CIS). Also, this doesn’t factor the children of illegal aliens who are citizens by virtue of birthright citizenship. Further, it doesn’t factor in benefits such as free access to the American public school system etc. which cannot refuse access to children of illegal aliens (even those children who are non-citizens).
 It would be one thing if those very same directives had been passed through the conventional lawmaking process, but the fact that they have been promulgated unilaterally—and specifically, with the intent to subvert the conventional lawmaking machinery, which is in opposition to the passage of many of those directives—reduces their legitimacy to me as law. To be clear, EOs, Presidential Memoranda and Guidelines are all constitutional—even if they are not expressly sanctioned by the Constitution, and the question of their legality, permissibility and constitutionality are no longer res integra; they are settled. However, in light of many of these directives being at stark variance with my ideological viewpoint, they are in my subjective assessment, undesirable—and being, once again, in my subjective assessment—less legitimate, merit being repealed.