freeman3 wrote:I'm not sure if these immigration policy differences matter much. Are they willing to spend the political capital to prevail over a good portion of the base that wants nothing more than a secure border?

I really am "the base." I'm tempted by Trump, but too informed to think he's really a conservative or that he's really about any particular set of principles.

With regard to the border, security is step one. I'm for a "path to citizenship," but not for all 20+M. I'm for getting rid of birthright citizenship. It makes no sense in a modern world wherein a Chinese couple can fly in/out of the US and have a baby here just to secure citizenship. That's just dumb. But, again, securing the border is NOT the end.

Show me a Republican that will not cut taxes without equally cutting spending, who will at least not raise military spending, who will be conservative about military involvement overseas, who has some economic ideas that are not trickle-down and is going to do something about economic stratification (through tax policy,access to education,trade policy, corporate power, Wall Street, worker's power vis-a vis large corporate employers, etc . ) and energy policy that does not cater to oil and coal producers and I might be interested...

So, if Hillary switches parties . . .

Otherwise on major issues there won't be much difference. Not that Hillary will be that much better on many of these issues , but she will be better.

After she's indicted, who will you vote for?

I'm for getting rid of birthright citizenship. It makes no sense in a modern world wherein a Chinese couple can fly in/out of the US and have a baby here just to secure citizenship.

You're one of the last nations on earth that still offers birthright citizenship. In my job I'm forever seeing Nigerian families with one American child. Any Nigerian family which can afford the flight looks to head to the States a week or two before giving birth. It's completely bonkers that this is allowed.

Biden...anyway with all the money in politics from business/wealthy interests there is only a narrow band width to move the country to the right or left...but just don 't *!$& up the country too much like GW....

Sassenach wrote:

I'm for getting rid of birthright citizenship. It makes no sense in a modern world wherein a Chinese couple can fly in/out of the US and have a baby here just to secure citizenship.

You're one of the last nations on earth that still offers birthright citizenship. In my job I'm forever seeing Nigerian families with one American child. Any Nigerian family which can afford the flight looks to head to the States a week or two before giving birth. It's completely bonkers that this is allowed.

I don't even know why anyone defends this. It is first-class stupid.

freeman3 wrote:Biden...anyway with all the money in politics from business/wealthy interests there is only a narrow band width to move the country to the right or left...but just don 't *!$& up the country too much like GW....

Sorry, but he couldn't hold a candle to your man.

I'm going to start a foreign relations forum in a week (when I get back from DC). I'm giving you some time to think through where in the world we are better off with Obama at the helm. Even Jimmy Carter said we're worse off around the globe because of Obama.

Well, the 14th Amendment by its plain words says if you're born in the US you are a US citizen ("All persons born in the United States...are US citizens").it's also very clear-cut--you are born here or not and you don't have to make any subjective appraisals about connections to the mother- ship. No one favors forum- shopping for giving birth, but the cure may not be worth it.

And you are under-cutting any argument against Obama by comparing him with GW--he was a complete disaster. 9-11, Iraq War, Financial Crisis, ending budget balancing--any one of those 4 would make one eligible for being one of the worst presidents...and he had four. Quite an achievement...which ones are you claiming for Obama?

freeman3 wrote:Well, the 14th Amendment by its plain words says if you're born in the US you are a US citizen ("All persons born in the United States...are US citizens").it's also very clear-cut--you are born here or not and you don't have to make any subjective appraisals about connections to the mother- ship. No one favors forum- shopping for giving birth, but the cure may not be worth it.

Um, why wouldn't it be worth it? There is NO REASON to keep it as is. Not one.

And you are under-cutting any argument against Obama by comparing him with GW--he was a complete disaster. 9-11, Iraq War, Financial Crisis, ending budget balancing--any one of those 4 would make one eligible for being one of the worst presidents...and he had four. Quite an achievement...which ones are you claiming for Obama?

This is like shooting fish in a barrel. But, I'm not debating this here. If you want to start a "GWB was even worse than Obama" forum, go ahead. The facts are not on your side.*

*As evidenced by your trying to blame Bush for 9/11. That's weak sauce.

There is a reason why they brief the president on potential terrorist threats...so they can do something about it. He was told that Al Qaeda was seeking to making to make a major attack in the US in August, 2001and he did nothing. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/op ... ?referrer=

What would you have done in his place? He did nothing--that was more than weak that was stupid.
And as far as causality goes of course that's difficult..but I imagine having us put us on a major security alert there would have a much better chance of stopping 9-11. Maybe they would have gotten Moussaoui to talk...who knows what security measures would have been instituted?
Also, that's why we have examples of commanders taking responsibility such as the buck stops here, falling on one's sword, going down with the ship...when you're in charge you take responsibility for failures you were a part of...clearly, GW made a monumental mistake.

Try defending him not ordering extra security after that security briefing. It's impossible. History will be the judge of his colossal ineptitude.

Here is a more detailed analysis of the negligence. Supposedly Bush told the CIA debriefer you've CYAed now...http://www.historycommons.org/context.j ... 1ranchmemo

freeman3 wrote:What would you have done in his place? He did nothing--that was more than weak that was stupid.

Meanwhile, Obama called ISIS the "JV" team. He did nothing--that was more than weak. That was stupid.

Further, he removed Qaddafi, leading to chaos and a failed state.

He drew a red line in Syria and then . . . did nothing when Assad crossed it. That was more than weak. That was stupid.

He issued weak objections when Putin took Crimea. He did nothing when Putin invaded Ukraine. That was more than weak. That was stupid.

He negotiated a pathetic agreement with Iran that fewer than 30% of the electorate supports. Iran can spend its money as it pleases and has pledged to eradicate Israel and kill Americans. That was more than weak. It was more than stupid. It was evil. He is arming our enemy.

And on and on. He's been USELESS, and if it wasn't for the elephant in the room, he would have been so unpopular he would have been impeached.

I've not even started on his weak economic record. He's a joke.

You want to attack Bush? Go ahead. Obama is indefensible. And, Hillary was his "right hand."

I said start another forum. Nope. Not going to do it.

Okay, Obama is the worst President in the last 100 years and only the fawning leftists who write history books could even begin to lie enough about his record to make a case to keep him out of the bottom five.

fate

Here's the thing: people, as I've said, are sick of politicians who won't/can't get anything done

I agree with this. But your system makes it impossible to get anything done without the executive office and veto proof majorities in Congress.
At least without the spirit of compromise that once lived in Congress...and which has been eroded, if not extinguished by the hyper partisans on the right.

fate

I'm tempted by Trump, but too informed to think

Apparently you've been informed by Anne Coulter.
Fate

I'm for a "path to citizenship," but not for all 20M+

Which would affect the ability to think, yes.

rickyp wrote:fate

Here's the thing: people, as I've said, are sick of politicians who won't/can't get anything done

I agree with this. But your system makes it impossible to get anything done without the executive office and veto proof majorities in Congress.
At least without the spirit of compromise that once lived in Congress...and which has been eroded, if not extinguished by the hyper partisans on the right.

False. Just false. Even the loathed GWB managed to get NCLB passed. He got the Surge through Congress. It's not impossible. It takes something some Presidents do not have: leadership.

rickyp wrote:fate

I'm tempted by Trump, but too informed to think

Apparently you've been informed by Anne (sic) Coulter.

Once again, if you're going to ATTEMPT to mock someone else's intellect, you might want to spell check. Furthermore, you might want to check your facts. She is on the Trump bandwagon. I'm not.

Fate

I'm for a "path to citizenship," but not for all 20M+

Which would affect the ability to think, yes.

No, and that is nothing other than another personal slight. You know, the kind of thing I get taken to the woodshed for.

Then again, one must be capable of marshaling an argument in order to not merely make personal attacks, so . . .

Anyway, thanks for the meaningless and erroneous insults.

Republican candidate says country is going in the wrong direction due to a weak liberal president, but country could be great again and he has plan to make it great again...Yes, that is pretty much Trump today but it could also be Reagan 1980...




Trump's strategy/appeal to Republican voters

(1) Many in Republican base think Obama has harmed country/pushed it in wrong direction;
(2) Trump and Reagan are similar in at least appearing to be tough guys/strong leaders;
(3) Trump cannot be bought/is not complicit in Republican Establishment giving in to Obama
(4) Trump/Reagan promising to make America great again

The difference is that Trump has a smorgasbord set of political beliefs, whereas Reagan at least espoused conservative principles. But what Republican candidate is going to appeal to that part of the base that is sick of "moderate" candidates that lose anyway? And Trump might have a Reaganesque appeal ("I paid for that microphone") that is not going to go away just by pointing out that Trump has supported liberal positions in the past.

And Trump might have a Reaganesque appeal

He is in stark contrast to Reagan on the subject of immigration.