Political Roundtable Part VIII

[nate33]

A good read:

If you think Trump is Hitler, You're Nuts

The are too many people out there who are utterly ignorant of who Hitler was and what Nazism is. Somehow, we've gotten the point where economic populism and nationalism is somehow the same thing as Nazism. It's absurd. It's also intentionally disingenuous.

Hitler arose during an era when Germany was under repressive economic sanctions as a result of World War I. They had understandable hostility toward their neighbors and a sense of righteousness in blaming others for their problems. Furthermore, Hitler had an expansionist philosophy where he wanted to grab land from his neighbors, particularly Poland which contained a fair number of ethnic Germans. Also, Hitler was obviously an anti-Semite.

None of these characteristics apply to the U.S. today, and Trump has none of the motivations of Hitler. Trump is a nationalist who wants to restrict immigration. That's no different than the policy of Israel or Japan, or nearly any other nation on Earth outside of Western Europe. Trump is clearly not an anti-Semite, his own freaking daughter is Jewish and he has Jews working throughout his campaign. Trump has no obvious expansionist aspirations and actually appears to be the second most dovish Republican in the race (to Rand Paul). Hillary freaking Clinton is to the right of Trump on aggressive foreign policy. And Trump's economic populism isn't much different than Ross Perot, and nobody applied Godwin's Law to him.

[Zonkerbl]

Interesting article about the virulent spread of misinformation on the internet. We may have reached a point of no return where it is in fact impossible to have rational discourse about anything. The demand for lies is stronger than the demand for truth.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/18/what-was-fake-on-the-internet-this-week-why-this-is-the-final-column/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na

"institutional distrust is so high right now, and cognitive bias so strong always, that the people who fall for hoax news stories are frequently only interested in consuming information that conforms with their views — even when it’s demonstrably fake."

[dobrojim]

dobrojim, the policy of low skill immigration is absolutely detrimental to the health of the country. This isn't a "simplistic policy solution" nor merely a bunch of old white people playing the blame game. The statistics on this are clear and compelling, as well as being intuitively obvious. All it takes is an understanding that the conditions are different in 2015 than they were in 1890. We are a knowledge economy welfare state, not a laissez-faire frontier economy.

Every year, we import a million immigrants, 2/3rds of which are poorly educated and likely to go on welfare for the next 20 years and vote exclusively Democrat. The other third are quality immigrants with education, though they still tend to vote Democrat more often than not. Do you seriously think that the perpetuation of this trend is the key to preserving the Republican party?

And I disagree with you about the demographics working against the GOP. They only work against the GOP because of the constant inflow of immigrants. There is a general trend of young liberals becoming more conservative as they get out in the real world. That trend will continue as always. Also, liberal women become conservative when they get married.

Saying your going to build a wall that will stop illegal immigration is a perfect example of a simplistic solution.
Saying your going to do that and get Mexico to pay for is ludicrous.

edit to add - saying your going to prohibit (even temporarily) all muslim immigration is a(nother) unworkable
simplistic solution. In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of a Trump policy proposal that isn't simplistic.

But as Robert Samuelson wrote today it does make your supporters feel good about themselves
(somebody agrees with me, I must be right!).

I am particularly struck by Trump's apparent philosophy of saying he must be right if some large
number of people repeat or re-tweet something he says as he reportedly did in response to being
challenged about his claim that 1000s (of muslims) celebrated across the river in NJ at the collapse
of the towers. As defense attorneys frequently point out, there is no less reliable evidence than eye
witness testimony.

[nate33]

dobrojim, the policy of low skill immigration is absolutely detrimental to the health of the country. This isn't a "simplistic policy solution" nor merely a bunch of old white people playing the blame game. The statistics on this are clear and compelling, as well as being intuitively obvious. All it takes is an understanding that the conditions are different in 2015 than they were in 1890. We are a knowledge economy welfare state, not a laissez-faire frontier economy.

Every year, we import a million immigrants, 2/3rds of which are poorly educated and likely to go on welfare for the next 20 years and vote exclusively Democrat. The other third are quality immigrants with education, though they still tend to vote Democrat more often than not. Do you seriously think that the perpetuation of this trend is the key to preserving the Republican party?

And I disagree with you about the demographics working against the GOP. They only work against the GOP because of the constant inflow of immigrants. There is a general trend of young liberals becoming more conservative as they get out in the real world. That trend will continue as always. Also, liberal women become conservative when they get married.

Saying your going to build a wall that will stop illegal immigration is a perfect example of a simplistic solution.
Saying your going to do that and get Mexico to pay for is ludicrous. But as Robert Samuelson wrote today,
it does make your supporters feel good about themselves (somebody agrees with me, I must be right!).

I am particularly struck by Trump's apparent philosophy of saying he must be right if some large
number of people repeat or re-tweet something he says as he reportedly did in response to being
challenged about his claim that 1000s (of muslims) celebrated across the river in NJ at the collapse
of the towers. As defense attorneys frequently point out, there is no less reliable evidence than eye
witness testimony.

Walls are simplistic because they work.

According to the most recent quarterly figures published by the Population, Immigration and Borders Authority, 36 people have been caught trying to enter the southern border since January.

It’s an incredible drop after 10,440 were caught in 2012, 17,298 in 2011 and 14,715 in 2010. In the years before that, the numbers were lower but still in the thousands. Beyond the 36 people who were caught at the border during 2013, another 59 who successfully crossed into Israel were detained by immigration authorities elsewhere in the country

[dobrojim]

Maybe for a little while. Desperation will create ingenuity. In the long run, it won't stop what he
perceives as a national imperative. (poorly worded)

[nate33]

Maybe for a little while. Desperation will create ingenuity. In the long run, it won't stop what he
perceives as a national imperative. (poorly worded)

In Israel, the wall reduced illegal immigration by a factor of roughly 99.8%. Sorry if I find that more convincing that the unsupported and unsubstantiated assertion that "it won't work in the long run".

As I've pointed out before, this notion of the inevitability of illegal immigration is false narrative intentionally disseminated by the media to discourage attempts to stop illegal immigration. It's complete nonsense. Of course we can stop illegal immigration. Build a wall. Prosecute employers who hire illegal aliens. Don't give illegal aliens driver's licenses, property, welfare or schooling. They'll go home.

[Zonkerbl]

To be precise, walls with a heavily armed guard stationed every fifty feet.

[nate33]

To be precise, walls with a heavily armed guard stationed every fifty feet.

That is neither precise nor accurate.

For the most part, the Wall is merely two fences with a road in between. There are actual walls in urban areas. Guard towers are very few and far between with most of the "guarding" being done by electronic surveillance and drones:

[dobrojim]

to further Zonk's point, yes you can accomplish quite a bit if you're willing to put sufficient ie unlimited
resources. But how's that working for Israel from an internal point of view. And why would
we want to imitate that?

[dobrojim]

I find it notable how few issues lefties think might be 'fixable' by govt intervention that Nate thinks are even remotely
feasible but how immigration is completely within our power to fix. Just an observation and not surprising given Nate's
philosophy

[nate33]

I find it notable how few issues lefties think might be 'fixable' by govt intervention that Nate thinks are even remotely
feasible but how immigration is completely within our power to fix. Just an observation and not surprising given Nate's
philosophy

The one primary function of a country is to define and secure its borders and determine its method of citizenship. Without borders and citizens, you don't have a country. Everything else is secondary.

If anything, this is a sign of how out of whack things have gotten. We have the federal government deciding whether bathroom signs are discriminatory because transgenders might get confused, but we can't define and protect our border.

[nate33]

to further Zonk's point, yes you can accomplish quite a bit if you're willing to put sufficient ie unlimited
resources. But how's that working for Israel from an internal point of view. And why would
we want to imitate that?

Going by Israel's cost per mile and extrapolating to our border, a wall would cost about $7 billion. That's less than the cost of one aircraft carrier.

[nate33]

A really good, even-handed analysis of Trump and his positions from National Review - an outfit that has been leading the neocon charge against him

[nate33]

Donald Trump leads the GOP presidential field in polls of Republican voters nationally and in most early-voting states, but some surveys may actually be understating his support, according to a new study.

The analysis, by Morning Consult, a polling and market research company, looked at an odd occurrence that has cropped up repeatedly this year: Trump generally has done better in online polls than in surveys done by phone.

The firm conducted an experiment aimed at understanding why that happens and which polls are more accurate...

*snip*

The experiment confirmed that "voters are about six points more likely to support Trump when they’re taking the poll online then when they’re talking to a live interviewer,” said Dropp.

The most telling part of the experiment, however, was that not all types of people responded the same way. Among blue-collar Republicans, who have formed the core of Trump's support, the polls were about the same regardless of method. But among college-educated Republicans, a bigger difference appeared, with Trump scoring 9 points better in the online poll.

College educated Republicans support Trump, but they're afraid to admit it publicly.

This could snowball if Trump ever gets over the credibility wall that the GOP Establishment and liberal media are trying to erect. There's a lot of people out there who can't help but acknowledge that the stuff Trump is saying makes a lot of sense. They're just worried about losing standing among their peers if they admit it.

This brings to mind the famous quote from a Manhattan socialite: "How could McGovern lose? Everyone I know voted for him."

[Zonkerbl]

to further Zonk's point, yes you can accomplish quite a bit if you're willing to put sufficient ie unlimited
resources. But how's that working for Israel from an internal point of view. And why would
we want to imitate that?

Going by Israel's cost per mile and extrapolating to our border, a wall would cost about $7 billion. That's less than the cost of one aircraft carrier.

but thats excluding the cost of staffing it. you actually have no idea how much it would cost.

[Zonkerbl]

To be precise, walls with a heavily armed guard stationed every fifty feet.

That is neither precise nor accurate.

For the most part, the Wall is merely two fences with a road in between. There are actual walls in urban areas. Guard towers are very few and far between with most of the "guarding" being done by electronic surveillance and drones:

Whatever Nate.

Do you admit that just building a wall would be stupid? That someone has to be watching the wall to make sure no one climbs over it or digs under it?

So first of all, you've gotta admit - no way is this wall going to be 100% effective. People are still going to get through. What is an acceptable rate of immigration reduction and how much staffing is required to hit that target?

You have no idea.

Suppose you need one hundred guards per mile for 2000 miles of fence (I don't even know how long the fence would have to be). Suppose a guard costs $40,000 per year. That's $8 billion per year. You know, a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon we're talking about real money.

Maybe 100 guards/mile is a lot, maybe it's actually less than what you would need. I don't think anyone has the slightest idea.

My experience with doing development related infra projects is you really have no idea how much things are going to cost until you pay a contractor to go over that 2000 mile stretch and give you an estimate, and even then industry practice is to assume it will cost twice as much.

[nate33]

Your numbers are an order of magnitude off base. More like 1 guard per mile, or a 5-guard station every 10 miles. And this is all within the context of the absurdly high cost of illegal immigration. Estimates are that Illegal immigration costs the American taxpayer a whopping $113 billion per year! Believe me, the Wall will be a financial benefit.

[crackhed]

College educated Republicans support Trump, but they're afraid to admit it publicly.

This could snowball if Trump ever gets over the credibility wall that the GOP Establishment and liberal media are trying to erect. There's a lot of people out there who can't help but acknowledge that the stuff Trump is saying makes a lot of sense. They're just worried about losing standing among their peers if they admit it.

This brings to mind the famous quote from a Manhattan socialite: "How could McGovern lose? Everyone I know voted for him."

he also has a 60% national unfavorable rating, if that's not a record for a first time non-politician candidate, its close.

[Zonkerbl]

Your numbers are an order of magnitude off base. More like 1 guard per mile, or a 5-guard station every 10 miles. And this is all within the context of the absurdly high cost of illegal immigration. Estimates are that Illegal immigration costs the American taxpayer a whopping $113 billion per year! Believe me, the Wall will be a financial benefit.

And you say my numbers are way off base...

These numbers, sir, came directly from your butt.

And the study you cite is a crock. We discussed this last time. No estimate of the "costs" of illegal immigration is legitimate if all it does is take a snapshot of the costs at one given moment, rather than properly taking into account the immigrants' increasing tax contribution over time and over generations as their education and earnings rise. Lifetime earnings potential is elementary economics taught in introductory macro classes. Nowadays they probably teach this in high school.

My hypothesis is that incumbent Americans are lazy idjits and the incoming immigrants are actually more innately talented, on average, than us. Bringing their families in injects talent into an otherwise decaying stock of human capital and makes us better off in the long run (over a generation or so).

[crackhed]

staying on subject of immigration, the bit of research i've done suggests to me that this was not a problem as recently as 3 decades ago.. indicating that it is a fairly recent trend. rather than a knee jerk response to blame immigrants outright maybe we should also look at services that make it their business to encourage everyone to get on the federal teat. and while we're at it change the laws to make it more difficult to do so