If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
I think that Trump's appeal goes beyond "OMG RACISM" and trade protectionism. Although he hasn't used the phrase, he very much believes in American Exceptionalism too. Patriotism, etc has been at the periphery of our Presidential races for a long time, but nobody since Reagan has so openly adopted American Exceptionalism like Trump. It has a very strong emotional appeal. He is trying to sell himself as a "win-win" for every citizen. "I am a rich, greedy businessman. Now let me be greedy on behalf of America and make the country rich!" By creating a shit ton of jobs, we will ultimately get more taxes for government. Big Government via prosperity! He is taking class warfare out of the equation. He is implying that if you are poor, you don't have to worry about losing your Gimmiedats, because we'll have enough money. That is why I think he will win.
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?
I think that in the long run the cost of the problems significantly outweighs the cost of enforcing immigration laws and securing our southern border.
I've not seen any particularly accurate accounting of the dollar costs you speak of here. I've seen some stuff but I question the figures and the underlying motivation for publishing them.
Having said that, and not being a dick about this, give us your view of what the costs of allowing an essentially open boarder with Mexico is versus what the savings would be if the US, in some form or fashion, shut all boarder crossings from Mexico into the US down.
Just so you know where I stand on this, I think that US immigration policy should be as open as possible given both legitimate security concerns and limitations on what benefits immigrants legally residing in the US and not yet having become US citizens have access to.
Duh ...... But not really. It's complicated. Many countries do a much better job dealing with the cost thing than we do because, in a general sense, they are not hand tied by the mealy mouthed liberalism in this country that simply does not deal with the cost of all the handouts that crowd so raucously and unaccountably demands.
Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. JH chased Saban from Alabama and caused Day, at the point of the OSU AD's gun, to make major changes to his staff just to beat Michigan. Love it. It's Moore!!!! time
This is, in part, why I think he can actually do it. He has, somehow, largely avoided any negative consequences for this approach. It's amazing.
So, while I think he's pretty locked in on immigration, I also know that he doesn't seem constrained by normal rules of politics.
He might not be constrained by the normal rules of politics. Then again, whenever it looks that way, it's usually not. (Two years ago John Beilein was defying the laws of physics as pertain to basketball, and look where we are now.) In this specific case, he has perhaps avoided negative consequences because it's the primaries. A race to the extreme is well suited to his TV talents. Moving back to the middle is not. If that's what he does. Maybe he does something else.
Either way, Hillary is a different animal. He can't make fun of her makeup like he can Rubio's, or say he's the only person on stage who has ever hired anyone. She won't race him to the bottom like Rubio is, and not just because she's a robot and would need a software update first. And she'd been crammed with details she can call up to show that she has a greater ``command of the issues''. So what Trump does is anyone's guess, and it'll be depressingly brilliant in a way that's destructive for the country and good for Trump, but I don't see that there's an easy path to staking out moderate claims Hillary would struggle to reply to.
I think that Trump's appeal goes beyond "OMG RACISM" and trade protectionism. Although he hasn't used the phrase, he very much believes in American Exceptionalism too. Patriotism, etc has been at the periphery of our Presidential races for a long time, but nobody since Reagan has so openly adopted American Exceptionalism like Trump. It has a very strong emotional appeal. He is trying to sell himself as a "win-win" for every citizen. "I am a rich, greedy businessman. Now let me be greedy on behalf of America and make the country rich!" By creating a shit ton of jobs, we will ultimately get more taxes for government. Big Government via prosperity! He is taking class warfare out of the equation. He is implying that if you are poor, you don't have to worry about losing your Gimmiedats, because we'll have enough money. That is why I think he will win.
I agree with this. It's Team America out on the global playing field and ready to kick ass. You see it what people say on CNN: ``If he runs the country anything like how he runs his company our troubles are over...'' I mean, well, you can't run a government like you run a commercial entity, and none of this seems to be anything more than vague applause lines that have no practical application other than keeping Trump in the news, but IMO it does explain the appeal.
Hillary is a different animal. He can't make fun of her makeup like he can Rubio's, or say he's the only person on stage who has ever hired anyone. She won't race him to the bottom like Rubio is, and not just because she's a robot and would need a software update first. And she'd been crammed with details she can call up to show that she has a greater ``command of the issues''.
Rubio and others spent months "debating" Trump in the standard way - the approach Hillary would presumably take. She's not a particularly great debater and she is, in no way, better than Ted Cruz. And he hasn't done jackshit using that approach either.
I'm not at all optimistic that Hillary can do any better. And Trump will go after her for all her obvious weaknesses -- the ones "The Burn" won't touch -- and it has nothing to with her appearance.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
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.
The Crusades were an act of war by the Catholic Church and its allies against the Muslims. The Catholic Church still has a country, and certainly did 600 years ago. The crusaders were incentivized by the Pope who offered immediate salvation to all who took part. That is the same promise made to the jihadis today by Islamicists.
There is a dramatic difference between Protestant Christianity and Catholic Christianity in the US, and no reporter in the I-95 corridor cares to learn about it. The controlled media simply assumes that Catholic and Christian are synonyms.
Assuming Trump wants to tack back toward the middle, and can do so without losing too much of his extremist rocket fuel, I don?t believe that solves his problems. Its not just what he says that turns people off, its how he says it and how he behaves as well; like spoiled, sexist, autocratic jackass. People who agree with what he?s selling overlook those characteristics, but nobody else does. That includes a lot of Republicans, to say nothing of moderates.
He will be doing Hillary a huge favor in the general by neutralizing her unfavorable personality, before their campaign even begins. Really, all she has to do is sit back in zone- talk about experience and specifics, blow some sunshine at women and minorities- and wait for Trump to throw interceptions.
I mean, well, you can't run a government like you run a commercial entity, and none of this seems to be anything more than vague applause lines that have no practical application other than keeping Trump in the news, but IMO it does explain the appeal.
Hack, I'd just suggest you may have a jaundiced view of this since you live in the DC area. As you know, I'm one who thinks that government is incredibly inefficient at virtually everything, so I see no harm in attempting to run the government like a business. Governments, both state and federal, use baseline budgeting. That is, they assume that every line of a budget will go up, say, 4% per year, and when they don't get that increase, they claim it is a budget cut. In business, we budget with GAAP and a cut is an actual reduction in the amount projected to be spent. This is a simple threshold question that would save the US trillions over 10 years.
31% of Americans interviewed after Scalia's death had no idea who or even what he was. To expect these folks to understand baseline budgeting is folly.
Rubio and others spent months "debating" Trump in the standard way - the approach Hillary would presumably take. She's not a particularly great debater and she is, in no way, better than Ted Cruz. And he hasn't done jackshit using that approach either.
I'm not at all optimistic that Hillary can do any better. And Trump will go after her for all her obvious weaknesses -- the ones "The Burn" won't touch -- and it has nothing to with her appearance.
I don't think she'll do any better. She'll agree to as few debates as possible. I just think that Trump would turn off voters razzing a woman as he does other men, and that she won't get into that sort of contest with him even if he did. We'll get the human equivalent of a bronzed statue on a marble pedestal.
What do you think her obvious weaknesses are that Sanders won't touch? You mean the email scandals and the various Clintonite corruptions? From what I can see Trump can go on about Wall Street contributions, which Bernie does too. He can also hit her on the neocon foreign policy, which Bernie does too.
Hack, I'd just suggest you may have a jaundiced view of this since you live in the DC area. As you know, I'm one who thinks that government is incredibly inefficient at virtually everything, so I see no harm in attempting to run the government like a business. Governments, both state and federal, use baseline budgeting. That is, they assume that every line of a budget will go up, say, 4% per year, and when they don't get that increase, they claim it is a budget cut. In business, we budget with GAAP and a cut is an actual reduction in the amount projected to be spent. This is a simple threshold question that would save the US trillions over 10 years.
31% of Americans interviewed after Scalia's death had no idea who or even what he was. To expect these folks to understand baseline budgeting is folly.
Right. Trump knows that so few can understand budgeting, which is why ``I'll run it like my business'' works.
Attempting to actually run government like a business is a fascinating question. That's what China's doing, in a way. Saudi Inc., etc. Can you do it and also attempt a just society? Good question. There would be a lot of things that would, in theory, do better if they were run like a business. If only it were that simple. I think that, ultimately, you can run something like a business if the goal is to turn a profit. Once you add in non-commercial goals, you no longer have that clarity. The fit starts to become awkward. But, in principle, I'm all for it. I've had exposure to all sorts of organizations with all sorts of goals. Everything outside the private sector lacks the luxury of having such a clear and simple goal. If it could be brought in, somehow, that's great.
Hack, I'd just suggest you may have a jaundiced view of this since you live in the DC area. As you know, I'm one who thinks that government is incredibly inefficient at virtually everything, so I see no harm in attempting to run the government like a business. Governments, both state and federal, use baseline budgeting. That is, they assume that every line of a budget will go up, say, 4% per year, and when they don't get that increase, they claim it is a budget cut. In business, we budget with GAAP and a cut is an actual reduction in the amount projected to be spent. This is a simple threshold question that would save the US trillions over 10 years.
But this doesn?t mean anything, in the context provided. Whatever your budget assumptions are, there are vast differences in expectations between an organization who?s core purpose is profit, as opposed to one who?s purpose is administration. Even within private companies...the HR department isn't expected to turn a profit for instance.
Tweet
Comment