• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump, Rubio and the Republican Establishment’s Tragedy of the Commons

calamity said:
I agree that Hillary is baggage laden. But, I have no doubt that she will fight the Republicans to the death, and maybe--just maybe--will have the political strength to push some of her agenda through Congress. Sanders will be more like Obama: a dude with all the right words but no fangs, and zero-chance to pass a goddamned thing.

On the GOP, I totally understand why they are in this mess. They've been dragging red meat through the trailer park for over a decade. The residents are finally sick of just sniffing the bait.
Click to expand...

What's Hillary's agenda? Aside from the possibility of gun banning. Which she won't get, the only agenda I see is more stuff, for me.

Regarding your trailer park analogy, I don't necessarily agree, but I agree with your analysis.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The answer (to the bolded above) is cost. There is no "small government" solution to border or immigration law enforcement. IMHO, the best solution to immigration law enforcement is a federal bounty payable to state/local LEOs that turn over illegal immigrants and those that employ or rent to them to the feds. The idea that 20K border patrol agents (only 40% of the number of federal airport nannies) or 5K ICE agents (only 10% of the number of federal airport nannies) can git-r-done is ridiculous.

It would cost less to give each illegal immigrant a house and a car than to deport them because of the "due process" requirements involved. We must fix the fact that there are jobs that US citzens will not do, primarily because the "safety net" pays more than those jobs do and also because we refuse to fund enforcement of current immigration law. So long as the median income in Mexico (and many other nations) is less than half what a full time, US minimum wage job pays we will have economic "refugees".
Click to expand...
this portion of your post is one with which i cannot agree
let's do a test: if ANY reader can identify a legal job they would not perform if the money is right, please post that job description

my position is there are no such jobs. what you have proposed is a subsidy of the costs of labor to those employers who seek to have labor performed at below-market rates
 
jimbo said:
What's Hillary's agenda? Aside from the possibility of gun banning. Which she won't get, the only agenda I see is more stuff, for me.
Click to expand...
Defending the right to abortion, continue funding PP, vetoing attempts to override Obamacare, and probably pushing various spending measures aimed at infrastructure at the expense of our overblown military budget. My kind of candidate, even if she is not my kind of person.

Regarding your trailer park analogy, I don't necessarily agree, but I agree with your analysis.
Click to expand...
I used the TP as a metaphor, of course.
 
justabubba said:
this portion of your post is one with which i cannot agree
let's do a test: if ANY reader can identify a legal job they would not perform if the money is right, please post that job description

my position is there are no such jobs. what you have proposed is a subsidy of the costs of labor to those employers who seek to have labor performed at below-market rates
Click to expand...

That is the crux of the argument. No one will pick tomatoes for $5 an hour and no benefits unless they are illegals with no rights. So, what it boils down to is that we have a Party that would cut the safety net because they rather people have no worker's rights, work for peanuts, stfu and vote for a Billionaire.
 
MrT said:
Why do you keep repeating this false claim about the United States not deporting anyone? First off, "deported" is an outdated term. If you are referencing "removals," then there were 235,000 in FY 2015, 315,000 in FY 2014, and 368,000 in FY 2013.

As for the notion that a temporary stay on muslim immigration is not the same as a ban, you're splitting hairs. The policy is still absurd and would be incredibly damaging to both our international reputation and our ability to actually stop terrorist attacks from occurring.
Click to expand...

And now reports are that Obama wants to fix this problem of too many deportations, by reinstituting the catch and release program. Just say I belong here 3 times and you're good to go.

A temporary stay until you figure out what is going on, how it affects the USA, and how to fix it is not a ban on immigration.

It's time to quit worrying about are international reputation, which sucks now more than ever, and start doing what's best for the good ol' US of A. I fail to see how stopping terrorist groups from entering the country hurts our ability to combat terrorism. Even the administration states that "only" a couple of percent of the entrants are terrorists. With hundreds of thousands flooding our borders, this becomes a simple math problem.
 
justabubba said:
this portion of your post is one with which i cannot agree
let's do a test: if ANY reader can identify a legal job they would not perform if the money is right, please post that job description

my position is there are no such jobs. what you have proposed is a subsidy of the costs of labor to those employers who seek to have labor performed at below-market rates
Click to expand...

You added a (first bolded above) qualification that proves my point. What I have advocated is that we stop pretending that we need to pay US citizens not to work while allowing "guest" workers to take jobs that pay too little to be attractive.

The other problem (second bolded above) is that the "safety net" is, in fact, just such a subsidy - if one requires $X income in order to live comfortably then what portion of $X comes from a paycheck and what portion of $X is added by the various "safety net" programs makes little (no?) difference. If a McJob (any low wage job) pays too little to support a given "household" then we the sheeple simply chip in the difference via the "safety net" - so we already do subsidize many such low wage workers.
 
tres borrachos said:
Not a clue what your last point was, or who said that quote you quoted.
Click to expand...
Sure you did. That's disingenuous. It's one of Cruz's most quoted lines of the recent campaign.

I'm not arguing in favor of any candidate.
Click to expand...
Well you were touting Rubio in your profile until this afternoon. You've also said that you're now supporting Kasich. Is none of that true?

I'm saying you don't even know what those GOP candidates have said to voters. I see, and I'm not alone, people on the Democratic side saying dumb things as well that are exactly like what I said, and event idiots like Madeline Albright back up those dumb Hillary comments and innuendos,
Click to expand...
No doubt, but pointing out that Dems say stupid stuff doesn't make GOP candidates' stupid stuff clever, now does it.

and a whole lot of voters think Bernie will give them free stuff.
Click to expand...
What evidence do you have for making that claim?

I've heard both of them say nutty things just as I've heard the GOP candidates say nutty things.
Click to expand...
Well, I've just quoted Cruz, Rubio and Carson verbatim. Perhaps you could do the same for Bernie and Hillary.

You don't like Cruz. That's fine. I didn't vote for him and I suspect you won't either. And I live in NH...Carson hasn't been second in the polls to Trump in a few months. Nobody who has been paying attention thought he had a real chance.
Click to expand...
Way to miss the point. The point of this whole exchange has been whether or not Reps should or would be more embarrassed by a Trump nomination than by one of another three current candidates I stated. Nothing more. Nothing to do with who I guess might or might not win the nomination.

I don't have a vote, but if you knew me at all you'd know that I'd just about be able to bring myself to vote for Bernie - but he's a bit too liberal to be ideal.
 
calamity said:
Defending the right to abortion, continue funding PP, vetoing attempts to override Obamacare, and probably pushing various spending measures aimed at infrastructure at the expense of our overblown military budget. My kind of candidate, even if she is not my kind of person.

I used the TP as a metaphor, of course.
Click to expand...

She's not my candidate. She wouldn't be even if she wasn't so full of negatives.

I meant that as an agreement.
 
MrT said:
Why do you keep repeating this false claim about the United States not deporting anyone? First off, "deported" is an outdated term. If you are referencing "removals," then there were 235,000 in FY 2015, 315,000 in FY 2014, and 368,000 in FY 2013.

As for the notion that a temporary stay on muslim immigration is not the same as a ban, you're splitting hairs. The policy is still absurd and would be incredibly damaging to both our international reputation and our ability to actually stop terrorist attacks from occurring.
Click to expand...

The problem with counting removals as deportations is simple. Jose crossed the border (from Mexico into the US) three times and was removed twice. Jose was indeed removed two times, thanks Obama, yet is still here. ;)
 
MrT said:
Why do you keep repeating this false claim about the United States not deporting anyone? First off, "deported" is an outdated term. If you are referencing "removals," then there were 235,000 in FY 2015, 315,000 in FY 2014, and 368,000 in FY 2013.

As for the notion that a temporary stay on muslim immigration is not the same as a ban, you're splitting hairs. The policy is still absurd and would be incredibly damaging to both our international reputation and our ability to actually stop terrorist attacks from occurring.
Click to expand...

You left out how much such a policy would do for the radicals. It fits right in with their rhetoric that Muslims will not be allowed to live in the west so you might as well join us.
 
jimbo said:
And now reports are that Obama wants to fix this problem of too many deportations, by reinstituting the catch and release program. Just say I belong here 3 times and you're good to go.

A temporary stay until you figure out what is going on, how it affects the USA, and how to fix it is not a ban on immigration.

It's time to quit worrying about are international reputation, which sucks now more than ever, and start doing what's best for the good ol' US of A. I fail to see how stopping terrorist groups from entering the country hurts our ability to combat terrorism. Even the administration states that "only" a couple of percent of the entrants are terrorists. With hundreds of thousands flooding our borders, this becomes a simple math problem.
Click to expand...

If you want to figure out where the threats are likely to exist in the Muslim community, then you need the cooperation of the Muslim community. Alienating them and their leaders by preventing all Muslims from entering your country hurts your ability to obtain that cooperation. And no, using any subjective or objective measurement that you like, the United States has a better international reputation now than it did before Obama became president.

Also iguanaman points out another valid reason why this policy would hurt our ability to stop terrorist attacks because it helps to CREATE more terrorists in that Muslims, already disenfrachised with other issues, would see a place of hope for a new life (America) turn into a country that hates them so much that they would cut off the entire religion from coming into the country. This would provide terrorist organizations with even more ammunition to recruit them.
 
MrT said:
If you want to figure out where the threats are likely to exist in the Muslim community, then you need the cooperation of the Muslim community. Alienating them and their leaders by preventing all Muslims from entering your country hurts your ability to obtain that cooperation. And no, using any subjective or objective measurement that you like, the United States has a better international reputation now than it did before Obama became president.

Also iguanaman points out another valid reason why this policy would hurt our ability to stop terrorist attacks because it helps to CREATE more terrorists in that Muslims, already disenfrachised with other issues, would see a place of hope for a new life (America) turn into a country that hates them so much that they would cut off the entire religion from coming into the country. This would provide terrorist organizations with even more ammunition to recruit them.
Click to expand...

If you are a Muslim leader and you want Muslims to be allowed into the US, then you need to aid in identifying the baddies and getting rid of them, Otherwise we need to restrict entry until we come up with a better solution.

Frankly, I care not for a Muslim's hope for a new life in the US, particularly if you then demand the right to carry on the old life in a new location.

I've heard the liberal talking point concerning the making of new terrorists by not playing nicey nicey. It's a talking point, nothing more. Nothing whatever to back it up.
 
Getting back on track, here's another good article discussing the mess in the GOP.

The night could have gone worse for the GOP establishment—but I’m not really sure how. Not only did Donald Trump win an overwhelming victory in New Hampshire, but the establishment lane of viable candidates got more crowded than it had been going in. And remember that since the current primary calendar was inaugurated in 1976, no GOP nominee has ever emerged without winning Iowa or New Hampshire. In case you haven’t been paying attention, that means that, if history is a guide, the GOP is likely going to be choosing between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz as a nominee, which is enough to have Beltway insiders waking up in cold sweats.

Read more at: Trump, Cruz are NH winners: Armageddon for the GOP Establishment
Click to expand...
 
calamity said:
Here's a very interesting perspective of the GOP's "Trump problem."



IMO, it goes deeper than that...but not by much. What I see their problem to be is that too many GOP voters are more concerned with ideological purity than actually winning the election. Trump supporters are no exception. The only thing is that with them, the purity they seek from their candidate is a nationalistic hero who pisses on the PC narratives. Not that this is a bad thing...it's just not a winning thing.

The establishment is toast. And, that too is not a bad thing. But, it most certoainly will not be a winning ticket in November.
Click to expand...

Disagree. Republicans on the whole are not ideological purists. If you listen to focus groups and what they say in interviews with reporters they are barely ideological at all. The typical voter is unconcerned with ideology, could not write a 100 word essay on ideological principles if his life depended on it. He or she votes on instinct, out of prejudice, because of what family and friends say, anything besides thought out ideas. The typical Trump supporter is not only "not an exception" but probably the least ideological and most instinctive voter of all. The great Republican issues these days are 1) anti immigrant and 2) pro war readiness and killing bad guys, issues that go to the gut and the gonads. You don't even have to think about them they are so appealing.
 
JackA said:
Disagree. Republicans on the whole are not ideological purists. If you listen to focus groups and what they say in interviews with reporters they are barely ideological at all. The typical voter is unconcerned with ideology, could not write a 100 word essay on ideological principles if his life depended on it. He or she votes on instinct, out of prejudice, because of what family and friends say, anything besides thought out ideas. The typical Trump supporter is not only "not an exception" but probably the least ideological and most instinctive voter of all. The great Republican issues these days are 1) anti immigrant and 2) pro war readiness and killing bad guys, issues that go to the gut and the gonads. You don't even have to think about them they are so appealing.
Click to expand...

I still see the GOP's main focus as being mostly about repealing ACA and limiting access to abortion. Side issues are building walls at the border and ramping up war rheotoric, but in reality Obama is already doing a lot on Defense and deportation of illegals.

The ACA and the Planned Parenthood stuff is the clearest divide between the two parties. The immigration and defense stuff is smokescreen and/or just a difference of opinion on how to approach those issues, more a matter of nuance.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
I still see the GOP's main focus as being mostly about repealing ACA and limiting access to abortion. Side issues are building walls at the border and ramping up war rheotoric, but in reality Obama is already doing a lot on Defense and deportation of illegals.

The ACA and the Planned Parenthood stuff is the clearest divide between the two parties. The immigration and defense stuff is smokescreen and/or just a difference of opinion on how to approach those issues, more a matter of nuance.
Click to expand...

I think the difference is between the ideologues for whom these are big issues and the rank and file for whom immigration and terrorism are more central. The proof is in the debates where abortion and the ACA get lip service while the candidates say what they believe people want to hear.
 
JackA said:
I think the difference is between the ideologues for whom these are big issues and the rank and file for whom immigration and terrorism are more central. The proof is in the debates where abortion and the ACA get lip service while the candidates say what they believe people want to hear.
Click to expand...

We just talked about this the other night. I maybe should start a thread on it. "What is the biggest problem facing America?"

No one in our group agreed on any single issue. I said it was debt. Others said immigration, ISIS, jobs, and one person said her student loans. lol

We kind of all agreed that Hillary was a terrible candidate but probably would be the safest choice. Kasich came in a distant second, basically he was the "if a Republican wins, I guess I hope it's him," candidate. One person--the one with the loans--really loved Sanders. No one liked Trump or Cruz. At all. And, Rubio pretty much was not even brought into the conversation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom