DC Tom Posted August 13, 2018 Posted August 13, 2018 1 minute ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: So, not perfect, but Wall money (I still contend that it's a stupid AF idea), a permanent DACA fix, no visa lottery and cuts on chain migration. As to whether it would pass the House...well, that's another problem, but at least it would have been something. The wall is a stupid as !@#$ idea - I support strong border security, but you can't just build a wall and say "There, we have a secure border!" You have to maintain and patrol it. Every estimate I've seen for the wall is low by a factor of at least 10, for those two reasons alone, and the money can be put to much better use for border security. But the bill in question - that's basically the House bill, the one that followed the Goodlatte bill. The one that everyone hated. The one called a "bad faith negotiation" by the press. It was only a bad faith negotiation because the Democrats will never let the Republicans get any credit for an immigration fix. Republicans could craft a bill that is a straight-up duplicate of DACA, and Democrats would still block it on the principle of "not invented here." Hell, Democrats would probably block a trafficking bill on the basis of "it's a bad faith bill, because Trump is trafficking in children himself!"
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted August 13, 2018 Posted August 13, 2018 7 minutes ago, DC Tom said: The wall is a stupid as !@#$ idea - I support strong border security, but you can't just build a wall and say "There, we have a secure border!" You have to maintain and patrol it. Every estimate I've seen for the wall is low by a factor of at least 10, for those two reasons alone, and the money can be put to much better use for border security. But the bill in question - that's basically the House bill, the one that followed the Goodlatte bill. The one that everyone hated. The one called a "bad faith negotiation" by the press. It was only a bad faith negotiation because the Democrats will never let the Republicans get any credit for an immigration fix. Republicans could craft a bill that is a straight-up duplicate of DACA, and Democrats would still block it on the principle of "not invented here." Hell, Democrats would probably block a trafficking bill on the basis of "it's a bad faith bill, because Trump is trafficking in children himself!" I can fully agree with you on the bolded part. I don't exactly agree with the animus behind a lot of it, but there are legitimate national security concerns with open borders. At the very least, you need monitoring and review. I personally think that a more fluid response force makes sense, with a lot of coordination with military intelligence and other intelligence services. It' would also help with smuggling and trafficking through sea ports as well. The saying I heard was "the easiest way to smuggle a WMD into the country is in a bag of weed". I honestly think we can have better, more effective national security using those methods rather than a static enplacement. As to the other part...I concede you may have a point. I think that you can shame each side into doing the right thing, but the Democratic leadership is so laughably inept that I could not bear to stay with them. They might turn down a deal that gives them half of what they want if they thought they couldn't have repercussions. I am all for draining the swamp and I hoped that the term limits promise would actually yield something. But all I've seen is things get swampier. 1
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 13, 2018 Posted August 13, 2018 18 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: I can fully agree with you on the bolded part. I don't exactly agree with the animus behind a lot of it, but there are legitimate national security concerns with open borders. At the very least, you need monitoring and review. I personally think that a more fluid response force makes sense, with a lot of coordination with military intelligence and other intelligence services. It' would also help with smuggling and trafficking through sea ports as well. The saying I heard was "the easiest way to smuggle a WMD into the country is in a bag of weed". I honestly think we can have better, more effective national security using those methods rather than a static enplacement. As to the other part...I concede you may have a point. I think that you can shame each side into doing the right thing, but the Democratic leadership is so laughably inept that I could not bear to stay with them. They might turn down a deal that gives them half of what they want if they thought they couldn't have repercussions. I am all for draining the swamp and I hoped that the term limits promise would actually yield something. But all I've seen is things get swampier. There's part of the equation which hasn't been discussed, and it's the darkest and most difficult part. As I mentioned prior, like every other multi-billion dollar industry, the human trafficking industry has lobbyists who have purchased politicians in order to protect their interests. These politicians are on both sides of the aisle, and they will vehemently oppose any sort of legislation which would implicate them in a modern day slave trade. Once dollar number one is taken, there's no way out; and the amounts of money are unfathomable which makes for comfortable handcuffs. The dollars are off-shored in South American banks. 1
reddogblitz Posted August 16, 2018 Posted August 16, 2018 On 8/12/2018 at 3:02 AM, ALF said: I walked away in 92 to vote for Perot, still disillusioned with both parties. My brother. Me too. On 8/12/2018 at 6:57 PM, row_33 said: Clinton hacks claim Perot was 50/50 from the parties but I won’t for one second believe Perot was less than 90 percent disaffected GOP voters I voted Ray Gun in 80 and 84 and HW in 88 and Perot in 92 and 96. 1
reddogblitz Posted August 16, 2018 Posted August 16, 2018 (edited) On 8/13/2018 at 1:05 PM, Boyst62 said: What a little dweeb. No one should care what this kid says. He's not accomplished anything. Typical millennial. i bet he has more followers than you. ??? Edited August 16, 2018 by reddogblitz 1
Doc Brown Posted August 16, 2018 Posted August 16, 2018 Any hashtag started on twitter is dubious as most #walkaway people are Trump supporters pretending to walk away and it's wishful thinking. It's just the way social media works and twitter seems to be the perfect medium for that. For the few democrats that are, they're obviously not very ideological to begin with or are so self absorbed that they think they're above the current state of the party (see Never Trumpers).
BeginnersMind Posted August 16, 2018 Posted August 16, 2018 (edited) Which party do you think is shrinking faster? While both are losing bodies and this thread celebrates the Dems departures, Republicans are facing even sharper declines. Reps face a darker future due to shifting demographics--Something Paul Ryan keeps saying. My concern is that Trump continues the trend of non-unifying vision and dialog (Obama was the first president I remember who was comfortable vilifying his non-voters, and Hillary followed suit). Trump's joy at “trolling,” and the country’s excitement for it—as evidenced by this board’s frequent glee when he and others do it—I hope, is a fad. It’s not leadership and it won’t take us anywhere productive. Where all these people who are leaving both parties go, and what voices will unite them, what vision will unify us, is a question unanswered, and to which few politicians currently provide much guidance. Edited August 16, 2018 by BeginnersMind 1
ALF Posted August 16, 2018 Posted August 16, 2018 I still think the state of the economy determines who voters choose.
BeginnersMind Posted August 16, 2018 Posted August 16, 2018 49 minutes ago, ALF said: I still think the state of the economy determines who voters choose. 1000000000000000000%
PearlHowardman Posted August 16, 2018 Posted August 16, 2018 More Democrats than Republicans voted in Tuesday's primaries. A lot more. Maybe #WalkAway is a hoax.
Tiberius Posted August 16, 2018 Posted August 16, 2018 23 minutes ago, PearlHowardman said: More Democrats than Republicans voted in Tuesday's primaries. A lot more. Maybe #WalkAway is a hoax. Maybe people are walking away from Trump
GG Posted August 16, 2018 Posted August 16, 2018 3 hours ago, BeginnersMind said: Which party do you think is shrinking faster? While both are losing bodies and this thread celebrates the Dems departures, Republicans are facing even sharper declines. Reps face a darker future due to shifting demographics--Something Paul Ryan keeps saying. My concern is that Trump continues the trend of non-unifying vision and dialog (Obama was the first president I remember who was comfortable vilifying his non-voters, and Hillary followed suit). Trump's joy at “trolling,” and the country’s excitement for it—as evidenced by this board’s frequent glee when he and others do it—I hope, is a fad. It’s not leadership and it won’t take us anywhere productive. How has that worked out for their legacy? Here again, we need to explain the major distinction of what Trump does and what Obama/Hillary did. Trump has not directly attacked an entire voting block. He brutally and childishly attacks individuals, but has not demeaned the acumen or dismissed outright the opposing voters. 1
row_33 Posted August 16, 2018 Posted August 16, 2018 Paul Ryan is a snake, be he's a GOP snake he watched his dreams come true and can't accept it because he was sitting on the side of the road as a spectator the whole time
BeginnersMind Posted August 16, 2018 Posted August 16, 2018 (edited) 37 minutes ago, GG said: How has that worked out for their legacy? Here again, we need to explain the major distinction of what Trump does and what Obama/Hillary did. Trump has not directly attacked an entire voting block. He brutally and childishly attacks individuals, but has not demeaned the acumen or dismissed outright the opposing voters. Obama will go down as a middling president who inherited a turd of an economy and muddled through 8 years of gridlock. Hillary will go down as a Spiro Agnew-like sinister player. Trump inherited a growing economy, helped throw gas on it, and the rest is TBD. Edited August 16, 2018 by BeginnersMind
GG Posted August 16, 2018 Posted August 16, 2018 1 minute ago, BeginnersMind said: Its working out poorly for the country. I don’t care as much about their individual legacies. Obama will go down as a middling president who inherited a turd of an economy and muddled through 8 years of gridlock. Trump inherited a good economy, helped threw gas on it, and the rest is TBD. That has nothing to do with the patronizing disdain that Obama & Hillary showed to 1/2 of the electorate.
BeginnersMind Posted August 16, 2018 Posted August 16, 2018 Just now, GG said: That has nothing to do with the patronizing disdain that Obama & Hillary showed to 1/2 of the electorate. Are you asking for a response from me?
3rdnlng Posted August 16, 2018 Posted August 16, 2018 11 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: Are you asking for a response from me? Please, no. 3 1
DC Tom Posted August 16, 2018 Posted August 16, 2018 1 hour ago, GG said: How has that worked out for their legacy? Here again, we need to explain the major distinction of what Trump does and what Obama/Hillary did. Trump has not directly attacked an entire voting block. He brutally and childishly attacks individuals, but has not demeaned the acumen or dismissed outright the opposing voters. Except when you live and breathe identity politics, an attack on an individual is an attack on a group. For example: calling Omarosa a "dog" oppresses all women and blacks.
3rdnlng Posted August 16, 2018 Posted August 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Except when you live and breathe identity politics, an attack on an individual is an attack on a group. For example: calling Omarosa a "dog" oppresses all women and blacks. Black Labs and Portuguese Water Dogs for sure, but Golden Retrievers are exempt.
row_33 Posted August 16, 2018 Posted August 16, 2018 18 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Except when you live and breathe identity politics, an attack on an individual is an attack on a group. For example: calling Omarosa a "dog" oppresses all women and blacks. Trump wants to gain all the votes he can from non-GOP demographics. he wants to take 43 states in 2020 and increase a hold on Congress for the GOP
Recommended Posts