Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[hack]

A repudiation of Hillary maybe, but not Obama. Winning by a few points, coupled with low Dem turnout- which is the only way he wins it- isn't any overarching rebuke.

If Trump's in the race then I don't see any scenario in which there's low Dem turnout. All liberals will want to vote against him, unless tacking back to the middle involves a serious disavowing of the racism that's got him this far, and he suddenly feels the Bern and becomes a candidate dedicated solely to railing against money in politics and free-trade policies that benefit multinationals at the expense of everyone else.

[iam416]

It'll be interesting to see how Hillary and the Ds tackle Trump. His most outlandish shit is still viable if he walks it back a bit and settles into the the sweet middle of rationality.

WRT to muslims, look, anyone with a fucking head on their shoulder knows there are significant differences amongst the religions in this world. It doesn't take much analysis to conclude that Islam is, to put it kindly, not consistent with liberal Western values. Yet, when it comes to the Ds, there is a gross equivocation most starkly illustrated by Obama's preposterous speech where he reminded us of the crusades (a fair point...6-fucking-hundred years ago). When it comes to "hate crimes" against Muslims in this country, they lag way, way behind "hate crimes" against Jews, though no one would know it.

So you have this liberal dogma that literally prevents any sort of honest discussion. Trump taps into that with grossly overgeneralized statements -- ban all Muslims! It's fucking stupid, but there a tons of people who want someone to say, yeah, Islam is way different than Christianity or Judaism. It's not honest, either, but it's the other side.

Meanwhile, there is an honest discussion to be had that acknowledges that unique attributes of Islam that may justify a higher scrutiny for admittance into this country. Hillary will NEVER go there. Trump may. If he gets there then he can, IMO, win that debate point.

With illegal aliens, Trump is actually right when he recently said they do jobs others won't. Deporting the lot of them makes little sense to me. Deporting folks who commit crimes of any sort make a lot more sense (see the guy in SF who killed someone after being arrested several times). Trying to better manage immigration makes more sense to me given the tremendous cost incurred by States and the US. There's plenty of room for reasonable discussion, but that's not going to happen. Again, there are places Hillary won't go that Trump can. If he doesn't overplay shit, he has a credible shot on this point, too.

And, heh, good luck talking race in this country.

[iam416]

There's very likely been more than one such incident, but even if there's 100 or 1000, are you saying it's reasonable to then say that the ~30m Mexicans in this country are rapists and drug dealers?

Yeah, I don't read it as "all" -- I read it as Mexico is sending some bad people to the US.

The counterpoint is rather clear -- if an illegal alien acts like a "bad person" and commits a crime, should that person be deported? Obama says no, not unless it's a violent felony. That was the thing that really drove the SF rape/murder home. The guy was fucking scumbag BEFORE he did this. And, per Obama policy, he was not deported.

For decades the GOP told voters that what was good for ``the job creators'' was good for everyone. If you believe that trade protectionism is a major part of Trump's appeal (i.e. it's not just the racism), then that's a major GOP pillar knocked out from under them. Maybe the GOP can't continue to use security and social issues to obscure their economic agenda. This, IMO, would be a major chage.

This is but one reason why Trump is a fucking independent running in the R primary.

[Hannibal]

It'll be interesting to see how Hillary and the Ds tackle Trump. His most outlandish shit is still viable if he walks it back a bit and settles into the the sweet middle of rationality.

WRT to muslims, look, anyone with a fucking head on their shoulder knows there are significant differences amongst the religions in this world. It doesn't take much analysis to conclude that Islam is, to put it kindly, not consistent with liberal Western values. Yet, when it comes to the Ds, there is a gross equivocation most starkly illustrated by Obama's preposterous speech where he reminded us of the crusades (a fair point...6-fucking-hundred years ago). When it comes to "hate crimes" against Muslims in this country, they lag way, way behind "hate crimes" against Jews, though no one would know it.

So you have this liberal dogma that literally prevents any sort of honest discussion. Trump taps into that with grossly overgeneralized statements -- ban all Muslims! It's fucking stupid, but there a tons of people who want someone to say, yeah, Islam is way different than Christianity or Judaism. It's not honest, either, but it's the other side.

Meanwhile, there is an honest discussion to be had that acknowledges that unique attributes of Islam that may justify a higher scrutiny for admittance into this country. Hillary will NEVER go there. Trump may. If he gets there then he can, IMO, win that debate point.

With illegal aliens, Trump is actually right when he recently said they do jobs others won't. Deporting the lot of them makes little sense to me. Deporting folks who commit crimes of any sort make a lot more sense (see the guy in SF who killed someone after being arrested several times). Trying to better manage immigration makes more sense to me given the tremendous cost incurred by States and the US. There's plenty of room for reasonable discussion, but that's not going to happen. Again, there are places Hillary won't go that Trump can. If he doesn't overplay shit, he has a credible shot on this point, too.

And, heh, good luck talking race in this country.

I think that this is a good summary. And yeah, turning all discussions about race and religion that go against the Progressive orthodoxy into a taboo has made it completely impossible to have a good reasonable discussion about those topics. Trump is the first candidate to ever tackle these issues without prefacing them with a bunch of mealy-mouthed "I am not a racist" language, and he is catching a bunch of shit for it.

There's very likely been more than one such incident, but even if there's 100 or 1000, are you saying it's reasonable to then say that the ~30m Mexicans in this country are rapists and drug dealers?

Wouldn't it be nice for the country's immigration policy to screen those people out? We don't have any idea what proportion it is. But we do know that educated, upper to middle class people in Mexico who are gainfully employed are probably not the ones that have an incentive to sneak across the border into our country. So what does that leave us with?

Here is another question -- do you think that an illegal Mexican immigrant is more likely or less likely than an average American to be a drug dealer or a rapist? Is it reasonable to assume that they probably more likely? I wouldn't even call it reasonable. I would call it "self evident".

[hack]

You're right that there probably is a wordsmith out there who can find just the right way to talk about Islam and security. In a sane discussion we are all in that place: even a room packed full of knee-jerk lefties will admit that Islam is a problem in some cases. See Reza Aslan talking to Jon Stewart as a good example of how that can happen. But sane discussions do not happen in presidential debates, and Trump thus far has given us no inclination that he can find that delicate balance of words. Furthermore the electorate has shown no inclination to rally around a nuanced position.

So what's your point? You seem to be saying that in lieu of having a reasonable discussion the next-best alternative is to have a destructive one.

[froot loops]

Don't forget he said he assumes some of them are good people.

[hack]

Wouldn't it be nice for the country's immigration policy to screen those people out? We don't have any idea what proportion it is. But we do know that educated, upper to middle class people in Mexico who are gainfully employed are probably not the ones that have an incentive to sneak across the border into our country. So what does that leave us with?

Why is it that people who say the government can't do anything right sometimes switch to saying that it can? Do you have a sense of what that would cost and how realistic it would be? On what basis should we believe it can get this right when in so many cases we know it can't get other things right?

[hack]

Don't forget he said he assumes some of them are good people.

One wonders if the masses of people voting for him have remembered that.

[Jeff Buchanan]

On this reasonable middle ground you speak of, talent ........ Absolutely agree with that wrt the issues.

The problem with having reasonable discussion and then implementation of policy that springs from it, however, is two fold:

(1) No one in the American Electorate, well, I should say enough of them who actually understand the issues to make something happen, is going to move the policy making needle one way or the other in Washington.

(2) Let's say there is a grass roots movement to shape Presidential and Legislative policy making (dream on) or you actually have representatives that will step beyond themselves and actually talk about important stuff. You then have the reality of the way Washington, the "Imperial City" that David Stockman talks about, goes about its business.

I think those two things are huge obstacles to getting the kid of reasonable discussions that will ultimately shape US immigration policy or for that matter, all policy.

You also make a good point about the reach of executive power. What are it's practical limits? Lets do a study. My view is that Trump, if he is elected President, will wield it and could be the kind of Bully Pulpit President that TR was. OTH, times have changed since TR's great success with that approach, and the first thing that will happen when The Donald tries to use it beyond what the House or Senate believe is not in THEIR interests (NB: not in the interests of the United Sates, mind you, just theirs) they'll cut his legs out from under him with impeachment hearings.

[iam416]

So what's your point? You seem to be saying that in lieu of having a reasonable discussion the next-best alternative is to have a destructive one.

My point, as stated in my topic sentence, is that the Trump can find a "rational sweet spot" on the aforementioned topics. And I think he's more likely to do so than Hillary. I find it very unlikely that Hillary will embrace anything other than the progressive equivocation on Islam. I also find it very unlikely that Hillary will say anything about deporting anyone or trying to better manage immigration. Her view will be in line with Obama's Executive Order to, more or less, ignore the law.

I don't know if Trump will get there. He did walk back his statement on Muslims into something considerably more sensible. His position on immigration re deport them all seems calcified, so that's probably not changing.

[froot loops]

The main reason Trump is conquering the GOP is he has an unlimited amount of earned media time. The other candidates need to spend millions of dollars to get name recognition and Trump sends out a couple free tweets and it dominates a news cycle. He has been covered more than any sitting President has been covered. The other candidates have no idea how to deal with this, they thought trying to be the genuine conservative of the field was the best strategy, they are fighting the last war.

[Hannibal]

Wouldn't it be nice for the country's immigration policy to screen those people out? We don't have any idea what proportion it is. But we do know that educated, upper to middle class people in Mexico who are gainfully employed are probably not the ones that have an incentive to sneak across the border into our country. So what does that leave us with?

Why is it that people who say the government can't do anything right sometimes switch to saying that it can? Do you have a sense of what that would cost and how realistic it would be? On what basis should we believe it can get this right when in so many cases we know it can't get other things right?

Not really sure what you're asking here. Border defense is a public good and the problems caused by illegal immigrantion are public bads. Therefore, border defense is a proper role of government. I'll be glad to have a discussion about what it costs. I happen to think that tightening our country's immigration policies will probably pay for itself.

[iam416]

The problem with having reasonable discussion and then implementation of policy that springs from it, however, is two fold

Implementation is an entirely different story, JB, for the reasons you mentioned and probably a bazillion more.

I'm more interested in the politics of it as we steam toward November. And the politics between now and then are focused entirely on talk and messaging. I really don't think Hillary has the operating room to be particularly nuanced on Islam/Immigration. I think Trump has the room to stake out a rational middle ground. I think he's far more constrained on Mexico with all his "Wall" and "deport them all" bluster. We'll see if he is at all inclined to walk those back a bit....god knows he's brazen enough to do it.

[hack]

Talent that would be interesting if Trump can find a way to shed the bombast, strike a balance, and keep his base. I certainly hope he tacks to the center, and it would be interesting to see how exactly that happens for a guy who seemingly was created to move in the opposite direction. I wouldn't assume he can stake out balanced positions Hillary cannot intelligently reply to, because he has no track record of saying moderate things. He has a track record of saying ridiculous things and achieving moderation through denying that he meant what he said.

[hack]

Not really sure what you're asking here. Border defense is a public good and the problems caused by illegal immigrantion are public bads. Therefore, border defense is a proper role of government. I'll be glad to have a discussion about what it costs. I happen to think that tightening our country's immigration policies will probably pay for itself.

Do you think the problems outweigh the benefits?