Usually what people take issue with isn't border security, it's the proposal to crack down on 11,000,000 undocumented immigrants and deport them. They're worried about the moral, social, and economic issues that may come with the procedure. Of course, that's a blanket statement; there's also people out there who want totally open borders, I'm sure.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Usually what people take issue with isn't border security, it's the proposal to crack down on 11,000,000 undocumented immigrants and deport them. They're worried about the moral, social, and economic issues that may come with the procedure. Of course, that's a blanket statement; there's also people out there who want totally open borders, I'm sure.
How's that working out for Europe? The totally open borders I mean.
Not too well. Most people who align with that line of thought are either hardcore liberals who generally aren't considerate of the consequences, or hardcore conservatives who do so on the basis of their interpretation of the founding fathers' principles. Very few moderate-minded people (generally the majority) hold that stance.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Usually what people take issue with isn't border security, it's the proposal to crack down on 11,000,000 undocumented immigrants and deport them. They're worried about the moral, social, and economic issues that may come with the procedure. Of course, that's a blanket statement; there's also people out there who want totally open borders, I'm sure.
He already said he's not deporting 11 million people.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Not too well. Most people who align with that line of thought are either hardcore liberals who generally aren't considerate of the consequences, or hardcore conservatives who do so on the basis of their interpretation of the founding fathers' principles. Very few moderate-minded people (generally the majority) hold that stance.
I'm fairly certain we conservatives aren't in favor of closed borders, just a really efficient vetting process.
Originally posted by Lucius
We're all doomed. Clinton is too greedy for her own good, and Trump is... I don't even know what can be said about him. He's insane.I would have preferred the Republicans nominate Ted Cruz. He's much a stronger candidate and I kind of hate his guts, but he doesn't scare me. If Ted Cruz became president, I wouldn't be worried about the fate of the country. I would dislike Ted Cruz's policies, but the man has the character and disposition to be president. Trump has neither of those things.
Hillary isn't really all that exciting, but she comes with the standard center-left agenda that I basically agree with.
I'm sick of all this PC/SJW bullshit. I'm tired of people harassing the cake bakers, wedding photographers, and orthodox believers. I think their beliefs are bullshit, but my side won the war. No need to be a dick in victory.
I think that the end result of the kinds of pressure on traditionalist people that you complain about will be a new social norm about what services are accessible to gay people. But until we sort of test the bounds, we're going to see a lot of tension as people demand their (new) rights.
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
👆Anyone who thinks Cruz is a better choice needs to get their heads examined.. Not shocking as to who actually thought that, though. Also apparently liberals won some kind of "war" out there. You've got to be batshit insane to think there was a war on "enter the social policy here", but to each his own 👆
I think he meant that progressives won the broader policy struggle RE: marriage equality. (Which is a total joke because gay people can still be fired if their sexuality comes to light, among other discrimination methods.)
My beef with Cruz was that he looked like a viable politician who has lots of awful policy beliefs about energy, sexual orientation, and women's health (to name a few). Trump is worse only in the sense that Trump doesn't really have a policy agenda; he seems to just say what will get him the most votes. I think that a Trump presidency would have a HUGE negative effect on the market because of uncertainty in policy direction. Many of his policies are either untenable (make Mexico pay for a wall) or highly risky (like a freeze on Visas to force companies to hire domestically).
Note that I haven't commented on any of the ways that Trump will exacerbate social tensions-- I think there are reasons not to vote for him that are rooted firmly in pragmatic economics instead of the culture war.
I think he meant that progressives won the broader policy struggle RE: marriage equality. (Which is a total joke because gay people can still be fired if their sexuality comes to light, among other discrimination methods.)But again, the only people fighting this war are the current GOP leaders who are much further right than anything during the Reagan administration, and do not represent the majority of conservatives. We've discussed this ad nauseam and I've told you, we neither support nor oppose (yes I remember your response), so we're not fighting a war.
Trump is worse only in the sense that Trump doesn't really have a policy agenda; he seems to just say what will get him the most votes.
I think that a Trump presidency would have a HUGE negative effect on the market because of uncertainty in policy direction. Many of his policies are either untenable (make Mexico pay for a wall) or highly risky (like a freeze on Visas to force companies to hire domestically).
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
But again, the only people fighting this war are the current GOP leaders who are much further right than anything during the Reagan administration, and do not represent the majority of conservatives. We've discussed this ad nauseam and I've told you, we neither support nor oppose (yes I remember your response), so we're not fighting a war.
I actually heard a really interesting podcast (maybe the Diane Rehm show?) about how young religious people (even religious republicans) are experiencing an ideological shift away from desiring legislation about sexual orientation. I think that you're right about saying that there are a lot of people on the sidelines who don't care much either way. However, in the parts of the country where the old religious motivations do survive, I think that the inaction of more socially moderate republicans is going to cost the right wing many elections over the next 10-15 years. I'm not going to ask that you become an advocate for me in particular. I'm saying that the Republican party's treatment of minorities and LGBT folk in particular is becoming a liability.
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
The only thing I got out of the Hilary campaign is just saying the opposite of what Trump is saying. She doesn't have any real plan laid out either.
Maybe she doesn't have a single narrative for the campaign trail. But I'm happy to vote for a pragmatist who has the experience to make reasonable decisions in almost any arena.
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
It's possible, but I think it can legitimately go either way. But lets be serious. Forget the culture war or the difference in political ideologies. Forget the argument that Trump is (ist this ist that, phobic this) or that Hilary allegedly deserves to be indicted for the email scandal. I look at this from a practical standpoint. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Pareto, but I look at our current situation as pareto efficient or optimal. Either choice we are going to have are going to be worse than the current status quo. Therefore, this goes back to which one sucks less or is the lesser of two evils. I look at Hilary and I see the poster child for your run of the mill, full of shit politician. Despite her meaningless and inconsistent pandering, I think I know what I'm going to get out of her. Because of such an awful choice, I think Trump could legitimately be hit or miss (right now looking like miss but making SOME progress), so I'll roll the dice with an unknown. I don't know where you stand on issues such as immigration, TPP, etc but that's another discussion. This is simply a practical choice for me.
(Yes I'm familiar with pareto efficiency. this made me lol)
Honestly, I'm struggling to understand where you're coming from. If we set aside the usual criticism of their personal histories, then Hillary becomes a much more attractive candidate imo. She has an intimate understanding of who has power and how it is used throughout the government, both domestically and abroad. She has a nuanced understanding of the ways that international disputes need to be managed, and a proven history as a negotiator on that stage. There's evidence that her foreign policy will be a continuation of (or magnification of) the sort of muscular gun-boat diplomacy that both Obama and Bush favored. Her policy platform acknowledges the dangers of Global Warming, which is probably as close to an existential threat as any of us are likely to see.
Basically, you are complaining about her being "full of shit" or "pandering" but I see a politician who is ready to address any eventuality with both poise and confidence.
Contrast Trump.
The campaign trail is maybe not the best place to evaluate the temperament of someone who actually attains office, but we haven't been given much else that we can use to evaluate Donald as a candidate. We see a campaign that centers around the ego of one man, rather than details about issues facing the country. When faced with criticism from Megyn Kelly, he lashed out via both twitter and his stump speech. His criticism of Kelly was both crude and weirdly personal. This type of interaction has been repeated throughout the campaign. When a journalist goes off script there are entire media sources that get "blacklisted" by his campaign. How is he supposed to work in a political system that is by definition oppositional, if he holds grudges like this? I think that there is substantial room for criticism of Donald Trump as a potential participant in the political process which is already so polarized and divided. How will he react to his first fillibustered policy measure?
Secondly, you talk about Trump being hit or miss, as though the presidency is something best left to chance. But this is the leadership position of the most powerful country in the world. There are brewing military conflicts in Turkey, the Middle East as a whole, and the South China Sea (to say nothing about Africa or Russia). Poorly managed leadership through any one of those crises could have lasting effects for generations. The "miss" condition is pretty dire. I tend to be pretty risk-averse when it comes to trade- or open- warfare. Moreover, this "miss" seems to be much more likely than the alternative "hit." We have seen that Trump does not fully understand the political dynamics of our closest cultural neighbor the UK (since he praised the Brexit to a Scottish audience). How can we trust him to navigate the much more complex situation in Turkey?
...
It's funny to me that you reference a Pareto optimum as a reason to vote for Trump. A Pareto allocation is a situation where nobody can be made better off without somebody else being made worse off. In my mind, that perfectly describes a presidency filled by Hillary Clinton. Clinton is likely to try for compromises that appease the Republican party, while working towards a centrist (admittedly slightly left-centrist) policy platform. For all the doom and gloom about Clinton, I'm not entirely sure I understand why Republicans are so apoplectic about her (while ignoring personal criticisms).
Meanwhile, Trump might make some people better off: Trade protectionism does, theoretically, benefit its targeted industries. BUT, there's reams of evidence that it leads to a net-negative economic shock to the nation as a whole. Meanwhile, there's a near-certain downside to minority groups, women, higher education, the environment, race relations, US military readiness, US standing internationally, the trade balance with China, and so on. Trump is the definition of a pareto downside. (Personally, I think that there is enough of a coalition against him that he isn't presidentially viable, but that's a different conversation.)
I actually heard a really interesting podcast (maybe the Diane Rehm show?) about how young religious people (even religious republicans) are experiencing an ideological shift away from desiring legislation about sexual orientation. I think that you're right about saying that there are a lot of people on the sidelines who don't care much either way. However, in the parts of the country where the old religious motivations do survive, I think that the inaction of more socially moderate republicans is going to cost the right wing many elections over the next 10-15 years. I'm not going to ask that you become an advocate for me in particular. I'm saying that the Republican party's treatment of minorities and LGBT folk in particular is becoming a liability.
Well, we haven't seen the Democrats' party platform yet. At this point I'd be surprised if it incorporates much of the Sanders campaign's promises. However, the policy environment that she represents is much more coherent to me. If you've gone to Clinton's website, she has thirty-seven separate policy tabs, with a relatively detailed description of her stance under each one. Trump has seven. One of his tabs is "pay for the wall" and it involves a commitment to brinksmanship diplomacy with one of our biggest trading partners. I'd be happy to discuss any particular position between the two candidates, but I think that the bottom line is this: Wherever you disagree with Clinton's policies (whether she is going too far or not far enough in any particular policy area) she is prepared to compromise and negotiate on all of them. She knows how the sausage gets made and is willing to do the hard political lifting to reach an agreement that both sides will accept.Maybe she doesn't have a single narrative for the campaign trail. But I'm happy to vote for a pragmatist who has the experience to make reasonable decisions in almost any arena.
Honestly, I'm struggling to understand where you're coming from. If we set aside the usual criticism of their personal histories, then Hillary becomes a much more attractive candidate imo. She has an intimate understanding of who has power and how it is used throughout the government, both domestically and abroad. She has a nuanced understanding of the ways that international disputes need to be managed, and a proven history as a negotiator on that stage. There's evidence that her foreign policy will be a continuation of (or magnification of) the sort of muscular gun-boat diplomacy that both Obama and Bush favored. Her policy platform acknowledges the dangers of Global Warming, which is probably as close to an existential threat as any of us are likely to see.
Basically, you are complaining about her being "full of shit" or "pandering" but I see a politician who is ready to address any eventuality with both poise and confidence.
The campaign trail is maybe not the best place to evaluate the temperament of someone who actually attains office, but we haven't been given much else that we can use to evaluate Donald as a candidate. We see a campaign that centers around the ego of one man, rather than details about issues facing the country. When faced with criticism from Megyn Kelly, he lashed out via both twitter and his stump speech. His criticism of Kelly was both crude and weirdly personal. This type of interaction has been repeated throughout the campaign. When a journalist goes off script there are entire media sources that get "blacklisted" by his campaign. How is he supposed to work in a political system that is by definition oppositional, if he holds grudges like this? I think that there is substantial room for criticism of Donald Trump as a potential participant in the political process which is already so polarized and divided. How will he react to his first fillibustered policy measure?
Secondly, you talk about Trump being hit or miss, as though the presidency is something best left to chance. But this is the leadership position of the most powerful country in the world. There are brewing military conflicts in Turkey, the Middle East as a whole, and the South China Sea (to say nothing about Africa or Russia). Poorly managed leadership through any one of those crises could have lasting effects for generations. The "miss" condition is pretty dire. I tend to be pretty risk-averse when it comes to trade- or open- warfare. Moreover, this "miss" seems to be much more likely than the alternative "hit." We have seen that Trump does not fully understand the political dynamics of our closest cultural neighbor the UK (since he praised the Brexit to a Scottish audience). How can we trust him to navigate the much more complex situation in Turkey?
It's funny to me that you reference a Pareto optimum as a reason to vote for Trump. A Pareto allocation is a situation where nobody can be made better off without somebody else being made worse off. In my mind, that perfectly describes a presidency filled by Hillary Clinton
Meanwhile, Trump might make some people better off: Trade protectionism does, theoretically, benefit its targeted industries. BUT, there's reams of evidence that it leads to a net-negative economic shock to the nation as a whole. Meanwhile, there's a near-certain downside to minority groups, women, higher education, the environment, race relations, US military readiness, US standing internationally, the trade balance with China, and so on. Trump is the definition of a pareto downside. (Personally, I think that there is enough of a coalition against him that he isn't presidentially viable, but that's a different conversation.)
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
You don't think the treatment is improving? I think more and more conservatives realize the constitutional logic in including LGBT in everything. We realize the world is not religious, so those people aren't "trampling" on our bibles or anything of the sort.
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
The willingness to negotiate used to be a positive character trait in a president, until now, where it has been a weakness for 8 years. I acknowledge that Obama is highly intelligent and even did some good domestically, but his foreign policies have been a goddamn disaster precisely because he's always willing to negotiate to our detriment. Also, you can't seriously say Trump won't negotiate when necessary. He's a pragmatic businessman and that's part of his job 24/7. Not that he's campaigning as a pragmatist but I fully expect him to negotiate just as much as Hilary, or rather whenever politically expedient.
My concerns about Trump diplomacy center around the times when he can't get his way. I was thinking mostly about domestic negotiations, where he has more power nominally but the other party can veto things. What if Nancy Pelosi arranges a filibuster for a measure he supports, will he have all of her measures blocked in retaliation?
On the international stage, my concern is mostly about ignorance. Trump hasn't ever negotiated with the leverage of the United States behind him. He's already talking about throwing our economic weight at Mexico to fund the wall. That kind of maneuvering has real costs to both sides of the border. In a unified company, economic losses from one division can be made up by another. In a country, when one group or demographic suffers they don't get their losses underwritten by corporate. (This is without even mentioning Trump's record of bankruptcies!)
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
And it's nice Hilary has a website with some of her plans laid out, it's just I have never heard it from the horses mouth. Everytime she speaks, I think Skynet has failed in its mission to create a Terminator that can look and talk like a human. She's completely opposite of Obama or even her husband, who are both amazing orators. And her pandering is such a turnoff. There's a reason we have an election like never before. Trump has ran the equivalent of a "yolo" campaign and he's nearly tied with Hilary. It's a phenomenon and it speaks as much to voter resentment as it does to Hilary's personality.
“She was wonderful at working with Republicans in the Senate,” says Harkin. “I never heard any Republican senators demean her during that time. She’d come to your office, sit down, talk, have coffee. She could have come in as a prima donna. She never did.” -vox
The thesis of that article is that she is good at individual conversations and working with people, but is wary of the media and large crowds. For someone used to being attacked, this seems pretty reasonable.
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
You're essentially saying "she's more experienced than Trump". That goes without saying. I'm going back to her demeanor, which is offputting to most people, and her track record as a senator (which is mixed). Then I listen to her campaign which lacks any real specifics and panders to the uneducated with meaningless platitudes (Trump says you're fired, I say you're hired). It's idiotic.
If we get down to cold logic and ignore emotional appeal or revulsion to either candidate, can you really say that Trump is better prepared or equipped to be president than Clinton?
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
That's where you and I disagree, I don't think she's willing to address any eventuality anymore than Trump is. But I view Trump as a pragmatic businessman (read businessman NOT president), so I think if he wins, his policies would become more rational and his demeanor will be a little more calming.
“Well, that is a gotcha question, though,” Trump protested to Hewitt when asked whether he was familiar with the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS). “I mean, you know, when you’re asking me about who’s running this, this this, that’s not, that is not, I will be so good at the military, your head will spin.”When Hewitt asked Trump whether he was familiar with Gen. Qasem Soleimani, the leader of the Iranian Quds Force, Trump replied he was, before referencing the Kurds, the U.S.-allied people that resides in northern Iraq, and adjacent territory in southern Turkey, parts of Syria and Iran. “The Kurds, by the way, have been horribly mistreated,” he continued.
...
Trump appeared unable to distinguish between Hamas, the U.S.-designated Sunni terrorist group that controls Gaza, and Hezbollah, the Shiite group that operates in Lebanon and parts of Syria. Asked when he would spend the time to learn the difference, Trump replied “when it’s appropriate.”“I will know more about it than you know,” Trump said. “And believe me, it won’t take me long.”
Also, did you hear about him offering control over domestic AND foreign policy to Pence? (Pence, who signed the RFRA, and whose constituents wanted him to run for VP specifically so that he couldn't run for re-election to governor.)
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
All fair points but I don't think his attitude during his campaign will have any continuity into the presidency, when he's already won and he finally has to put up or shut up. But I agree about his insecurity, I have no idea why someone of that stature has such insecurity issues. Again, he knows he has a lot of pressure on him because of all the crap he's said the past 6+ months, I think he'll be up for the challenge. If he fails, I'll be the first person to criticize him. I just don't have much faith in Hilary. I'd rather believe Trump would delegate responsibilities like a good businessman.
Even if you don't take that bait, I'd love to get a feel about which of Donald's specific accomplishments make you think that he is a satisfactory candidate. Ignore Hillary for a second. Just tell me why you're willing to conceive of him sitting in the Oval Office (right next to the red button).
You think that equivocating between "state department advisory board" and "President of the united states of america" counts as productive political discourse? And that there are no other differences that might matter between Trump the international businessman and Fernando the international businessman?
0/10 will not torch again
Originally posted by Zampanó
You think that equivocating between "state department advisory board" and "President of the united states of america" counts as productive political discourse? And that there are no other differences that might matter between Trump the international businessman and Fernando the international businessman?0/10 will not torch again
Proof of anything you claim?