Political Roundtable Part VIII

[nuposse04]

And Trump can be Trump because yes, we haven't had any strong/smart leadership in two straight administrations. The biggest danger we have is in having no direction.

I would say the lack of leadership is 10 or 100x more dangerous.

So exacerbating a problem is then ignoring it? I agree the policy we have right now may seem frustratingly flat but inflaming the tension doesn't seem to me a 10-100X better alternative. :/

The point is that there was no discussion going on... it took Trump to "flame" the subject. And the policy we have isn't flat - it is basically non-existent on both sides of the aisle.

If it takes Trump flaming to begin having the discussion - then I am fine with that...

Wanting to talk about how to deal with ISIS is fine... giving credibility to a policy predicated on xenophobia and blatant discrimination is something else entirely. The latter does nothing to aid in our ability to curtail ISIS influence unless you plan to round up all the "muslim-looking" people already in the states who you may believe to be a threat. I have to believe perpetuating "justifiable hate" will marginalize some muslims and send them into the lower corners of morality shared with ISIS. You may very well stop certain ISIS members from coming INTO the US via such an action but you create another issue with promoting that sort dialogue as "leadership" and "direction."

I have yet to hear what Trump would actually DO in Syria/Iraq to deal with the ISIS threat abroad.

Saying something stupid and irrational is not better then not saying anything at all. Doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to say it...

[nate33]

And Trump can be Trump because yes, we haven't had any strong/smart leadership in two straight administrations. The biggest danger we have is in having no direction.

I would say the lack of leadership is 10 or 100x more dangerous.

So exacerbating a problem is then ignoring it? I agree the policy we have right now may seem frustratingly flat but inflaming the tension doesn't seem to me a 10-100X better alternative. :/

The point is that there was no discussion going on... it took Trump to "flame" the subject. And the policy we have isn't flat - it is basically non-existent on both sides of the aisle.

If it takes Trump flaming to begin having the discussion - then I am fine with that...

I agree. If Trump took a squishy, intellectual approach to the immigration problem, he never would have shifted the Overton Window and we'd have the same old same old with Republicans talking tough about immigration and then signing on for amnesty.

The other benefit (for him) of Trump's approach is that it put him in the spotlight. He has a pattern of stating a rationale, albeit outside the mainstream, policy in an inflammatory manner to get the news cycle going. There's a lot of pointing and spluttering, but when the details are finally weighed out, we see that his position isn't so radical and that a significant percentage of Americans agree with him. But he gets so much mileage from the coverage, first for his statement, then for the outrage, then for the correction. And the whole time, he develops the credibility of not backing down to the press or his detractors. He's done it several times:

"Mexicans are rapists, we're going to build a wall and make them pay for it." After it's sifted down, we see that he's really saying that Mexico has a policy of sending its underclass to America so Mexico doesn't have to take care of them (true), and that this group of underclass Mexicans has a higher propensity for crime (also true). Ultimately a fence should be built to stop this (a reasonable position) and the existing illegal immigrants should be sent home where they can stand in line and wait their turn. These are all positions espoused by people before, but they never got traction.

"Take their oil". A shocking statement at first, but after it's sifted down, we see that he is not an interventionist and was against the war in Iraq, but if a war is to be fought, it was to be fought to win. Taking over the oil would deprive the jihadists of their revenue while funding our war effort. Seems pretty logical to me. He's still not advocating it yet. Right now, his stance is to let Putin do most of the dirty work. It gives him some credibility as a non-interventionist, but also the confidence that if he must go to war, he'll do it right.

"Ban the Muslims" In reality, it's a temporary ban on Muslim immigration until the vetting process can be worked out. Again, a reasonable position. It has the added bonus of forcing all of his opponents, on both sides of the aisle, to disagree with him if they want to maintain their PC credibility. But if there is another attack before the election, it'll absolutely crush them politically.

Trump is killing everyone in the polls yet he has spent only $200,000 to date on media advertising. Bush has spent $30 million.

[dckingsfan]

I think the challenge is for the other R candidates, this Administration and Hillary to come up with a strategy (a comprehensive one if you are the administration). Instead their reactions have been - "how could he" - "he can't talk like that". Instead of, "your policy sucks - mine is better and here is why".

[nate33]

There have been some hysterical developments within the Republican party as they panic about the Trump phenomenon. At first it was, "he'll flame out soon". Didn't happen. Then it was: "once a mainstream contender moves to the top, he'll consolidate the group and defeat Trump, who can't get past 25%. Oops. Trump is at 35% and the highest a mainstream candidate has gotten to is Rubio at about 9%. And things historically don't change much over the holidays. Time is running out.

Now we have talk of a brokered convention. The strategy here is that Trump is unlikely to get 51% of the votes with so many other candidates out there, so if they can just get to a brokered convention, all the party insiders will wheel and deal and insert an establishment guy at the top. Not gonna happen. Carson just nuked that idea. He's not gonna play the patsy to the Establishment. I seriously doubt Cruz will either. If Carson and Cruz won't play ball, the Establishment can't beat Trump.

Whether or not Trump wins the thing, I'm really happy to see the Establishment get routed. That group of bank-owned, pro-cheap labor warmongers need a reality check.

[nuposse04]

Whether or not Trump wins the thing, I'm really happy to see the Establishment get routed. That group of bank-owned, pro-cheap labor warmongers need a reality check.

Now there is come common ground there Nate

As far as republican party dynamics go... I'd be interested to see if consolidation of "establishment" candidates has any effects on Trump's viability... some people claim it may... but I wouldn't be surprised at this point with Trump being some people's "number 2" guy.

I sill believe Kasich to be the most electable guy in the general election but it still baffling he doesn't get air time.

Interestingly, he is also the guy Charles Barkley of all people, supports. He had a little rant yesterday going off on Trump and CNN actually saying they "sold their soul" for ratings and sound bites and likened them to fox news now... I actually think he is a little right about CNN. They use to be less...absurd in what they deemed newsworthy but now its blatant ratings pandering.

Only "news" networks worth watching anymore are bloomberg, bbc and Al Jazeera IMO.

[Induveca]

Timely, frightening quote:

"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

[Zonkerbl]

if anyone, anywhere in the world successfully invests in physical or human capital, everybody everywhere else in the world benefits. We can help people by giving them trade opportunities, by signing free trade agreements, or we can provide humanitarian aid (which doesn't work terribly well, I'm afraid) or we can let them move here and invest in themselves. As long as they aren't invading like a mongolian horde and torching and burning things as they go we will be better off for letting people move here and improve their lives.

Your logic is flawed because all investments aren't equal. Any wise investment should be based on a reasonable rate of return. The fact is, we live in a welfare state. The vast majority of unskilled 3rd world immigrants are a net negative in economic benefit. They cost more to our welfare system then we get out of them in taxation, and this includes their next generation. The data on this is clear. And that doesn't even factor the higher crime rate, declining schools, and other clear negative impact of low skill immigrants.

Let's try this from another angle. Polls show that there are literally one billion people who, if given the chance, would immigrate to America. Nearly all of these people are from 3rd world countries. Should we let them all in immediately? If no, why not?

Or try this: We are a rich society and people in sub-Saharan Africa are poor. A dollar of profit helps us here far less than it helps them there. Why shouldn't we demand a 95% tax rate on every citizen in America and give ALL of it to the people of Africa? It would presumably hurt our happiness and well-being to a significant degree, but it help them far more. Wouldn't that result in more net happiness overall? Why aren't you screaming at your leadership to do this?

Nate you are making up facts to fit with your erroneous world view. It is absolutely NOT TRUE... well, any of the assertions you just made.

You live in a black and white world of lies, Nate. You've got to embrace the truth.

[JWizmentality]

So exacerbating a problem is then ignoring it? I agree the policy we have right now may seem frustratingly flat but inflaming the tension doesn't seem to me a 10-100X better alternative. :/

The point is that there was no discussion going on... it took Trump to "flame" the subject. And the policy we have isn't flat - it is basically non-existent on both sides of the aisle.

If it takes Trump flaming to begin having the discussion - then I am fine with that...

I agree. If Trump took a squishy, intellectual approach to the immigration problem, he never would have shifted the Overton Window and we'd have the same old same old with Republicans talking tough about immigration and then signing on for amnesty.

The other benefit (for him) of Trump's approach is that it put him in the spotlight. He has a pattern of stating a rationale, albeit outside the mainstream, policy in an inflammatory manner to get the news cycle going. There's a lot of pointing and spluttering, but when the details are finally weighed out, we see that his position isn't so radical and that a significant percentage of Americans agree with him. But he gets so much mileage from the coverage, first for his statement, then for the outrage, then for the correction. And the whole time, he develops the credibility of not backing down to the press or his detractors. He's done it several times:

"Mexicans are rapists, we're going to build a wall and make them pay for it." After it's sifted down, we see that he's really saying that Mexico has a policy of sending its underclass to America so Mexico doesn't have to take care of them (true), and that this group of underclass Mexicans has a higher propensity for crime (also true). Ultimately a fence should be built to stop this (a reasonable position) and the existing illegal immigrants should be sent home where they can stand in line and wait their turn. These are all positions espoused by people before, but they never got traction.

"Take their oil". A shocking statement at first, but after it's sifted down, we see that he is not an interventionist and was against the war in Iraq, but if a war is to be fought, it was to be fought to win. Taking over the oil would deprive the jihadists of their revenue while funding our war effort. Seems pretty logical to me. He's still not advocating it yet. Right now, his stance is to let Putin do most of the dirty work. It gives him some credibility as a non-interventionist, but also the confidence that if he must go to war, he'll do it right.

"Ban the Muslims" In reality, it's a temporary ban on Muslim immigration until the vetting process can be worked out. Again, a reasonable position. It has the added bonus of forcing all of his opponents, on both sides of the aisle, to disagree with him if they want to maintain their PC credibility. But if there is another attack before the election, it'll absolutely crush them politically.

Trump is killing everyone in the polls yet he has spent only $200,000 to date on media advertising. Bush has spent $30 million.

I've been wondering how Trump supporters justify his stances, as I just couldn't wrap my head around it but thank you. You've made it clear to me now. I just needed a sift.

[nate33]

Your logic is flawed because all investments aren't equal. Any wise investment should be based on a reasonable rate of return. The fact is, we live in a welfare state. The vast majority of unskilled 3rd world immigrants are a net negative in economic benefit. They cost more to our welfare system then we get out of them in taxation, and this includes their next generation. The data on this is clear. And that doesn't even factor the higher crime rate, declining schools, and other clear negative impact of low skill immigrants.

Nate you are making up facts to fit with your erroneous world view. It is absolutely NOT TRUE... well, any of the assertions you just made.

You live in a black and white world of lies, Nate. You've got to embrace the truth.

[Zonkerbl]

I'm not going to relitigate this Nate. I kicked your ass in this argument two or three years ago -- go back and look it up.

The last paragraph of your previous post is an insulting slap in my face. Go back and actually read what I said and quit being an ahole.

[Benjammin]

Ad hominem and playing the victim? ^^^ Impressive!

[popper]

Good lord. Government incompetence is to the point now that just about any radical can come ashore and slaughter Americans. Mgmt 101 to Immigration officials, check their social media for god sake.

U.S. Visa Process Missed Zealotry on Social Media

WASHINGTON — Tashfeen Malik, who with her husband carried out the massacre in San Bernardino, Calif., passed three background checks by American immigration officials as she moved to the United States from Pakistan. But none uncovered what Ms. Malik had made little effort to hide — that she talked openly on social media about her views on violent jihad.

She said she supported it. And she said she wanted to be a part of it.

American law enforcement officials said they recently discovered those old — and previously unreported — postings as they pieced together the lives of Ms. Malik and her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, trying to understand how they pulled off the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil since Sept. 11, 2001………..

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/us/san-bernardino-attacks-us-visa-process-tashfeen-maliks-remarks-on-social-media-about-jihad-were-missed.html?_r=0

[cammac]

if anyone, anywhere in the world successfully invests in physical or human capital, everybody everywhere else in the world benefits. We can help people by giving them trade opportunities, by signing free trade agreements, or we can provide humanitarian aid (which doesn't work terribly well, I'm afraid) or we can let them move here and invest in themselves. As long as they aren't invading like a mongolian horde and torching and burning things as they go we will be better off for letting people move here and improve their lives.

Your logic is flawed because all investments aren't equal. Any wise investment should be based on a reasonable rate of return. The fact is, we live in a welfare state. The vast majority of unskilled 3rd world immigrants are a net negative in economic benefit. They cost more to our welfare system then we get out of them in taxation, and this includes their next generation. The data on this is clear. And that doesn't even factor the higher crime rate, declining schools, and other clear negative impact of low skill immigrants.

Let's try this from another angle. Polls show that there are literally one billion people who, if given the chance, would immigrate to America. Nearly all of these people are from 3rd world countries. Should we let them all in immediately? If no, why not?

Or try this: We are a rich society and people in sub-Saharan Africa are poor. A dollar of profit helps us here far less than it helps them there. Why shouldn't we demand a 95% tax rate on every citizen in America and give ALL of it to the people of Africa? It would presumably hurt our happiness and well-being to a significant degree, but it help them far more. Wouldn't that result in more net happiness overall? Why aren't you screaming at your leadership to do this?

I must assume your lineage is from Royalty rather than most immigrants to North America that came from humble origins. Really a pathetic commentary!

[nate33]

if anyone, anywhere in the world successfully invests in physical or human capital, everybody everywhere else in the world benefits. We can help people by giving them trade opportunities, by signing free trade agreements, or we can provide humanitarian aid (which doesn't work terribly well, I'm afraid) or we can let them move here and invest in themselves. As long as they aren't invading like a mongolian horde and torching and burning things as they go we will be better off for letting people move here and improve their lives.

Your logic is flawed because all investments aren't equal. Any wise investment should be based on a reasonable rate of return. The fact is, we live in a welfare state. The vast majority of unskilled 3rd world immigrants are a net negative in economic benefit. They cost more to our welfare system then we get out of them in taxation, and this includes their next generation. The data on this is clear. And that doesn't even factor the higher crime rate, declining schools, and other clear negative impact of low skill immigrants.

Let's try this from another angle. Polls show that there are literally one billion people who, if given the chance, would immigrate to America. Nearly all of these people are from 3rd world countries. Should we let them all in immediately? If no, why not?

Or try this: We are a rich society and people in sub-Saharan Africa are poor. A dollar of profit helps us here far less than it helps them there. Why shouldn't we demand a 95% tax rate on every citizen in America and give ALL of it to the people of Africa? It would presumably hurt our happiness and well-being to a significant degree, but it help them far more. Wouldn't that result in more net happiness overall? Why aren't you screaming at your leadership to do this?

I must assume your lineage is from Royalty rather than most immigrants to North America that came from humble origins. Really a pathetic commentary!

A nice insult, but it is not a refutation of my facts or logic. You can't compare immigration today to immigration a century ago because a century ago there was no welfare system. It was a much more effective screening process: immigrants were either successful or they starved. There was no other option. Furthermore, it was a time when having a strong back and a good work ethic was all that was necessary to eek out a living. That is no longer the case.

I suggest you review the stats I posted here a month ago. They are breathtaking. The fact is, nearly all low-skill immigrants are on welfare, and they remain on welfare for 20 years. And their kids remain on welfare as well. Furthermore, they drive down the cost of labor to existing American citizens (of all races), forcing them out of work and into the welfare system as well. There's a reason why the middle class is shrinking and that real wages haven't risen since the 80's.

Read the posts I linked to, and then get back to me with something more useful than insults.

[Illuminaire]

Ad hominem and playing the victim? ^^^ Impressive!

I'm beginning to think that if Zonk was a rapper, he would drop the mic before he even started the set.

This particular part of the board can have some of the deepest and most interesting exchanges of ideas that I've seen. When people actually engage with each other's ideas and arguments, the results are at the least educational. It's a little disappointing when people do the exact opposite.

[dckingsfan]

So, since Trump brought the issue to the foreground, I have been looking for articles that reflect my opinion (I like that Trump brought the issue to the foreground, I just disagree with his conclusions). So (a mini-set):

1) the rhetoric from the oval office matters and don't be a warmonger but don't get bitch slapped either
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-beat-islamic-state-1449850833

2) Bring in 1% of our population (300,000) per year
a) Anyone who gets a degree here is in
b) Anyone that has the cash reserves to start a business is in
c) Folks with advanced degrees in the sciences move to the front of the line

3) Figure out the other side of growth
a) corporate taxes that don't push inversions
b) increase the number of banks that loan to small businesses

[popper]

Two more findings reveal that this administration continues to violate federal law with impunity. It would be very helpful to our Republic’s future if Democrats would join Republicans and insist that our laws be faithfully executed. The precedent being set for executive branch lawlessness is a dangerous and destructive one.

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency engaged in “covert propaganda” in violation of federal law when it blitzed social media to urge the general public to support President Obama’s controversial rule intended to better protect the nation’s streams and surface waters, congressional auditors have concluded.

The ruling by the Government Accountability Office, which opened its investigation after a report in The New York Times on the agency’s practices, served as a cautionary tale to federal agencies about the perils of getting too active in using social media to push a cause. Federal laws prohibit agencies from engaging in lobbying and propaganda……

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/15/us/politics/epa-broke-the-law-by-using-social-media-to-push-water-rule-auditor-finds.html?_r=0


Washington (CNN)A House Armed Services Committee report set to be released Thursday accuses the Obama administration of misleading Congress and violating federal law during a controversial prisoner exchange.

The report compiled by the GOP majority charges that the administration did so when it bypassed Congress in negotiating the exchange of five Taliban prisoners for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was being held in Afghanistan. They suggested that the White House had put politics and expediency ahead of proper procedure in making the deal.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/09/politics/taliban-5-bowe-bergdahl-congress-report/index.html

[crackhed]

A nice insult, but it is not a refutation of my facts or logic. You can't compare immigration today to immigration a century ago because a century ago there was no welfare system. It was a much more effective screening process: immigrants were either successful or they starved. There was no other option. Furthermore, it was a time when having a strong back and a good work ethic was all that was necessary to eek out a living. That is no longer the case.

I suggest you review the stats I posted here a month ago. They are breathtaking. The fact is, nearly all low-skill immigrants are on welfare, and they remain on welfare for 20 years. And their kids remain on welfare as well. Furthermore, they drive down the cost of labor to existing American citizens (of all races), forcing them out of work and into the welfare system as well. There's a reason why the middle class is shrinking and that real wages haven't risen since the 80's.

Read the posts I linked to, and then get back to me with something more useful than insults.

there is no link in that post... can you post the link to the article?
thanks

[nate33]

A nice insult, but it is not a refutation of my facts or logic. You can't compare immigration today to immigration a century ago because a century ago there was no welfare system. It was a much more effective screening process: immigrants were either successful or they starved. There was no other option. Furthermore, it was a time when having a strong back and a good work ethic was all that was necessary to eek out a living. That is no longer the case.

I suggest you review the stats I posted here a month ago. They are breathtaking. The fact is, nearly all low-skill immigrants are on welfare, and they remain on welfare for 20 years. And their kids remain on welfare as well. Furthermore, they drive down the cost of labor to existing American citizens (of all races), forcing them out of work and into the welfare system as well. There's a reason why the middle class is shrinking and that real wages haven't risen since the 80's.

Read the posts I linked to, and then get back to me with something more useful than insults.

there is no link in that post... can you post the link to the article?
thanks

The data is from here:

http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-Households

[TGW]

Two more findings reveal that this administration continues to violate federal law with impunity. It would be very helpful to our Republic’s future if Democrats would join Republicans and insist that our laws be faithfully executed. The precedent being set for executive branch lawlessness is a dangerous and destructive one.

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency engaged in “covert propaganda” in violation of federal law when it blitzed social media to urge the general public to support President Obama’s controversial rule intended to better protect the nation’s streams and surface waters, congressional auditors have concluded.

The ruling by the Government Accountability Office, which opened its investigation after a report in The New York Times on the agency’s practices, served as a cautionary tale to federal agencies about the perils of getting too active in using social media to push a cause. Federal laws prohibit agencies from engaging in lobbying and propaganda……

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/15/us/politics/epa-broke-the-law-by-using-social-media-to-push-water-rule-auditor-finds.html?_r=0


Washington (CNN)A House Armed Services Committee report set to be released Thursday accuses the Obama administration of misleading Congress and violating federal law during a controversial prisoner exchange.

The report compiled by the GOP majority charges that the administration did so when it bypassed Congress in negotiating the exchange of five Taliban prisoners for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was being held in Afghanistan. They suggested that the White House had put politics and expediency ahead of proper procedure in making the deal.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/09/politics/taliban-5-bowe-bergdahl-congress-report/index.html

were you as outraged when Bush violated several international laws and started an illegal war that cost billions of dollars and killed thousands of people?