IN THE COMMENTS: AJ Lynch had written:
In the last 20-30 some years, the fed govt has not fixed even one big thing. Not one. Simplifying the tax code, securing the borders, infrastructure, longterm national defense plan, reforming the 80 year old bankrupt social security system, the economy and jobs, a consensus & sensible foreign policy. Those are big things I consider as needing fixing. Yet not a one has been fixed in 20-30 years. I think the voters feel Trump will fix at least one big thing and that is what counts. Voters won't care about this eminent domain case or any other crap MSM libs dig up unless the voter is just looking for an excuse to vote for the same old same old Dem BS [is that perhaps you Althouse?]My response was:
Fixing one big thing... sounds like what Obama did.Reading the rest of the comments this morning (Sunday, 6 a.m.), I realize that AJ Lynch and many others didn't understand the point in the post, and I feel that almost no one understood my response to AJ Lynch.
First, the post was not about caring about "this eminent domain case," but the way Trump's use of eminent domain should undercut the belief that Trump is a conservative. Trump's favorite words include "big" and "love." You're going love the big things he's going to do. It's gonna be great. Trust him! If that pumps you up, you are not conservative. Or it's not the conservative part of you that is responding to Trump. So what is it? Illegal immigrants?
Second, this idea of fixing one big thing. That's what Obama did with health care. He focused on one big problem that needed fixing, and he devoted his presidency to that one great reform. Oh, but you don't like that fix, perhaps. What makes you think you're going to like Trump's big fix? He's mostly threatening to fix illegal immigration, and sure, that, like health care, is a huge problem. How do you think Trump's ideas about that are going to work in practice? You think that will be less of a clusterfuck than Obamacare? It will be more. Much, much more. Anyone who's leaning back and enjoying the idea of Trump "fixing" things for us is juvenile, dreaming of magic big government. Again: not a conservative. Hopey-changey.
Posts
232 comments:
1 – 200 of 232 Newer› Newest»I'd be willing to think this could make a difference if only all the revelations about gun control, Obamacare, etc., etc. had had any effect. Sadly, no.
So long as everybody comes out ahead, there's nothing wrong with takings, for conservatives.
"The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy."
That was not Donald Trump. At least, not yet.
Although if he was I guess his numbers would go up.
Even if it was a Mexican girl.
Or boy.
Man, I'm getting cynical.
In the last 20-30 some years, the fed govt has not fixed even one big thing. Not one.
Simplifying the tax code, securing the borders, infrastructure, longterm national defense plan, reforming the 80 year old bankrupt social security system, the economy and jobs, a consensus & sensible foreign policy. Those are big things I consider as needing fixing. Yet not a one has been fixed in 20-30 years.
I think the voters feel Trump will fix at least one big thing and that is what counts. Voters won't care about this eminent domain case or any other crap MSM libs dig up unless the voter is just looking for an excuse to vote for the same old same old Dem BS [is that perhaps you Althouse?]
Trump is, and has always been, pond scum. Like all too many "politicians", he is popular for what he says, not for what he does or what he is capable of doing.
Trumpy populism is immune to evidence and argument. But maybe boredom will do the trick.
Fixing one big thing... sounds like what Obama did.
I'm not really concerned. If Trump were a normal politician, i'd weigh it against all of his views. I realize from the get-go that I'm never going to agree with a candidate 100%, unless that candidate is me. I've got good friends who just can't stand Ben Carson because they are anti-vaccination and have sick children that they blame vaccines on, and so they will never vote for Carson.
So the question becomes, how do I rank these issues and where does the candidate come down on the issue? Eminent domain means very little to me in the larger scheme of things. If Trump's position remains what it was when he was on Stossel, then I disagree with him. I think property rights are a very important right for a free country.
But I also think our next President, our next three or four or five Presidents will have very little to do with any new laws on Eminent Domain.
I much more interested in what he's going to do with our illegal immigration problem. What will he do with our military? What will he do with our crumbling infrastructure? What will he do with our nuclear weapons facilities?
So, as a Donald Trump supporter, this property rights issue ranks pretty low for this election.
Blogger Sebastian said...
Trumpy populism is immune to evidence and argument. But maybe boredom will do the trick.
I'm willing to listen when you present any evidence, or arguments.
"I think the voters feel Trump will fix at least one big thing and that is what counts. Voters won't care about this eminent domain case or any other crap MSM libs dig up unless the voter is just looking for an excuse to vote for the same old same old Dem BS [is that perhaps you Althouse?]"
This X2.
I have been watching in bemusement as all the right thinking people, and media elites, blather on clueless as to the reasons the Donald continues to rise in the polls. Double chuckles when his numbers bump when the media exposes another scandal thats sure to topple him. You see, in addition to the points AJ Lynch made, history has taught a lot of us that if media likes a candidate it's best to go the other way.
The issue that makes him popular is too icky to discuss. Let's pretend the half dozen Trump supporters who abandon him over eminent domain will turn the election.
Trance?
ad hominem much, Professor?
Fixing one big thing... sounds like what Obama did.
Huh? If you mean the Middle East, I beg to differ. If you mean the ACA, then it's way to soon to tell. That creaky edifice built by Democrats (spurning even the help of Susan Collins) looks as though it call topple shortly as its inherent flaws become more obvious. As of right now even you must be aware that it is bending the cost curve in the wrong direction!
The issue that could break the trance Trump has on some conservatives.
Eminent domain."
Trump certainly does have a problem with that. However so does every candidate as well. Which Republican is advocating to repeal Kelo? The Davis-Bacon Act? The Wagner Act? Income redistribution? Minority set asides? Student loans? Farm subsidies? Green energy nonsense? Non-compete contracting? Rent control? Every one of these examples and there plenty more is a form of eminent domain. So the Republicans are going to go after him for what? Hypocrisy? He can sling it back on them. And the Democrats? Robbing Peter to buy Paul is their reason for existing. Not shilling for Trump but there are no virgins in this whorehouse and trying to stick this hypocrisy on him probably won't work when he calls out those criticizing him.
Blogger Big Mike said...
Fixing one big thing... sounds like what Obama did.
Huh? If you mean the Middle East, I beg to differ. If you mean the ACA, then it's way to soon to tell. That creaky edifice built by Democrats (spurning even the help of Susan Collins) looks as though it call topple shortly as its inherent flaws become more obvious. As of right now even you must be aware that it is bending the cost curve in the wrong direction!
She isn't saying Obama did one big thing, so much as she is saying, "Connect Trump with Obama in your mind, please! and reject him."
I've seen this a lot. Obama=Trump and Trump=Obama.
The idea is, if you can connect the two in people's minds, maybe they will reject Trump.
Fixing one big thing... sounds like what Obama did.
What did Obama fix?
From the article: "...so that Trump could pave it and put up a parking lot."
As long as such writers channel Joni Mitchell instead of Frank Capra ("You Can't Take It With You"), Dems & Libs will lose this angle too. Any reaching back to the 1960's/1970's is pretty much dead in the water.
Not a big deal. Business.
Ann Althouse said...
Fixing one big thing... sounds like what Obama did.
8/22/15, 8:42 PM"
So far Trump hasn't fucked up anyone One Big Thing unlike Obama who has fucked up various Big Things. So far Obama has managed to bat a perfect loss on everything. That does take talent albeit a mighty perverse talent.
Not a big deal. Business.
Yeah, something like that will be his response.
Ya'll don't get it. I am against government handouts, eminent domain, you name it, but I am going to get all I can get or somebody else will. My Father gets a state pension and I've managed to convince him how crazy they are. He asks "what should I do, tell them not to pay me so much?" Answer is "No, get as much as you can."
What if Donald did the whole "I did it like everybody else and then he takes the punch bowl away based on capitalist and conservative business values. That is interesting and something I'd vote for.
@eric, wrong interpretation. The Professor wrote the word "did," meaning that Obama completed something in the past. If she meant what you wrote she would have written "sounds like what Obama proposed to do."
Althouse comes across as a person who's genuinely frightened of Trump, but I don't perceive why. I don't think he's the best candidate to fix the mess that Obama has made of everything (for instance, did I mention that your sensitive Obamacare medical data is even less well protected than the OPM data?) but he'd do better than any of the Democrats and several of the Republicans currently in the race. And I'm including the coy Mr. Biden (a.k.a., "Hands," a.k.a., "Crazy Uncle Joe") in the list.
Trump is not what conservatives think a conservative should be. As his use of eminent domain demonstrates, Trump is a crony capitalist, just like Al Gore and Solyndra and all the others. But some conservative voters are so sick and tired of the sell-outs and moderates and RINOs that they only hear Trump say, the Hell with political correctness, close the border, send the illegals home, and that's enough for them to cheer him. It does no good to argue that "birth right citizenship" is baked into the Constitution. That argument comes later, when Pres. Walker or Pres. Cruz or Pres. anyone-but-Trump starts to deal with the issue in January 2017. Now, the person who will take the nomination away from Trump is either (1) the candidate that can show that he/she is just as opposed to these screwed up policies, but isn't a freaking nut, or (2) Trump himself when he goes too far. I've been waiting for (2), but maybe that's not the right strategy.
"Some conservatives" aren't really conservative at all.
If Trump delivers on his promises, he will be there greatest ever. A more secure border may prevent a civil war. Besides Tibet, what country has experienced the sort of invasion the United States has without exploding into war? The answer is none.
A one time (confiscatory) tax on the ultra wealthy will address fiscal imbalance and inequality. Gun control? Yes! A Medicare buy-in and universal healthcare is the right way to bring down medical costs.
And don't forget about corruption and big money in politics maybe the root of all our evils.
Trump as Tessio: I'll tell the voters it was only business. I always liked them.
Hagen: They'll understand that.
Yeah hmm. It may or may not be in the Constitution but what is the past six years but an exercise in parchment-shredding? Stroke of the pen, five judges who want what you want, law of the land. Does anyone even care about principles anymore? I think that's broken. Process is broken. Ann and her cronies have done this. Now we just want good results instead of their bad results. I say the gloves are off. We are on a knife's edge.
Jesus Spiros lay off the ouzo.
Any reaching back to the 1960's/1970's is pretty much dead in the water.
The reason I wrote that is because Trump is addressing threats to that our grandparents and grandparents before fought for: effective borders, jobs, cultural integrity instead of "maximum diversity," language, etc., etc. The 1960's are utterly irrelevant and the author was wrong to channel them.
In not convinced that the people saying they would vote for trump are actually conservative or would in fact vote for Trump.
Now Trump admitted to that audience, he was taken in by Obama, the fact he swallowed 'the Bush lied us into war' garbage, suggests that was true,
they are less likely to be liberal, they were probably Reagan Democrats, of the blue collar variety,
Narciso, clarify please?
Trump is the primal scream of the GOP base and maybe the Democrat base aside from blacks and illegals.
from some of the polling internals, donald warren's 'radical middle' that went back to Wallace and Goldwater
Thanks, no, your 10:12.
Grasping at straws. The entire point of Trump is that he's not like the rest of them. Unlike the rest of them, he does not have to adopt the conservative point of view on all issues.
Unlike the rest of them, he does not have to adopt the conservative point of view on all issues.
Trump des (George Will)ens
Ann Althouse said...
Fixing one big thing... sounds like what Obama did.
"Did" as in a subjunctive mood usage of "to do."
I can't believe all this support for Trump. We need to nominate a REAL Conservative. Are Dole, McCain or Romney ready for another run?
I really enjoy Trump bitch slapping the media. Given most of the media despise my political point of view, that never gets old. And having eight years of that would be refreshing and entertaining, regardless of whatever else happened with his Presidency.
And please no demagogues who dislike Obamacare or Obama's executive orders giving millions amnesty. I want someone who'll support our men in DC - experienced wise legislators who've gotten this country where it is today. Men of substance like the Boehner and McConnell.
I want someone who's REALLY conservative,
"Ann Althouse said...
Fixing one big thing... sounds like what Obama did."
Well, true, he did get NASA out of the earth-to-orbit business. And end Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell. So that's two.
But boy did he screw up our health care system. And race relations. And the Middle East.
"I want someone who's REALLY conservative"
Thanks..I just spit my beverage on the screen.
What is the issue that will break the trance Hillary has on some liberals?
Or Bernie for that matter?
This story entitled "When Casino Gobbles Up Neighbors" appeared in the NY Times in August 1996:
Ms. Coking's is the only private house left on Columbia Place, the block between Pacific Avenue and the Boardwalk and better known these days as the alley between Caesar's and Trump Plaza. But it is not the only remaining building on the block that the state Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (Creeda) has been trying for three years to condemn. Creeda wants to seize Ms. Coking's property and two others, a family-owned bar-restaurant and a pawn shop, claiming eminent domain. Why? To hand it to Donald J. Trump to put up a few bushes and a limousine staging area for his newly expanded casino.
Back in the day Garry Trudeau was doing a daily Doonesbury cartoon in which Duke for the benefit of Donald Trump was surrounding the Sabatini "spaghetti joint" with picketers to shut down the place.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Eminent domain is not a conservative cause. The only concern is the liberal abuse of the Fifth Amendment, including for commercial purposes, but also government redistribution schemes. For example: Obama and the social complex's subsidized integration/marginalization schemes.
Trumpy populism is immune to evidence and argument. But maybe boredom will do the trick.
The danger of over exposure. Maybe. Could happen. But I believe before it could that the MSM will go the other direction and attempt to shut off Trump’s exposure, otherwise known as “coverage” in MSMland.
I see the first hints of this in MSNBC’s chosen Trump clips, chosen to highlight issues and statements that MSNBC believes could be most harmful to Trump. Their problem is that their clips unwittingly channel the thoughts of many voters. After this tactic fails cutting off coverage is the next step.
I realize from the get-go that I'm never going to agree with a candidate 100%, unless that candidate is me.
A sentence dripping with wisdom.
Sorry anti-Trumpers but I do not believe the linked article from the Cato Institute will have much effect on Trump’s rise. Litmus-type issues that scorch other candidate are not relevant to the Trump phenomenon. Perhaps because he shines for them in the overall thrust of his rhetoric:
Make America great again, strong military, better treatment of vets, jobs creation using capitalism(as opposed to socialist government jobs), border security, The Wall which Mexico will finance, stopping the drain of illegal aliens on America’s social safety nets(medical, housing, food stamps AFDC, etc.) and much better international negotiations that would happen in a Trump administration.
Interesting Trump fact: Trump’s sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, a Republican, is a judge with outstanding academic credentials on the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Future SCOTUS nominee?
http://tinyurl.com/opugnut
It wouldn't affect things too much, unless somebody makes it an issue and Trump says he still believes in the wide use of eminent domain to force people to sell when they don't want to sell, and to compensate people at low prices to do things like build parking lots for hotels.
Trump’s sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, a Republican, is a judge with outstanding academic credentials on the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Future SCOTUS nominee?
Maryanne Trump Barry is now 78 and on senior status since 2011. She was appointed a lower federal court judge by President Reagan upon the recommendation of Governor Kean of New Jersey (they wanted a woman) and a appelate judge by President Clinton in 1999 upon the recomendation of Senator Robert Toricelli (partially maybe because Clinton anticipated trouble in getting his judges confirmed - she was one of a pair maybe.)
A lot of people who know her don't, or didn't, know she's Donald Trump's sister. She went to law school very late.
She could get nominated if nobody was being confirmed - her age then would act as a selling point.
Trump isn't going to nominate his own sister for SCOTUS.
He'd rather help women who look good in thongs.
Isn't that the basic feminist fear we're dealing with here?
BTW, I love how the Donald doffed the whole fake hair issue in the clip posted earlier.
You WILL NOT see that in the MSM. It would be a total story-killer.
I sense that Trump is scaring the heck out of the establishment on both sides of the isle. Probably a bit more on the right. I am thinking though that the only real way he loses against Hillary is if he comes across as bullying her (which is why I think he would need a female running mate). What he may do is blow up the Democratic Party coalition. Reagan Democrats are a given. But his flash, his larger than life personality could attract a lot of Blacks, esp having been written off by the Dems in favor of the govt unions and Hispanics. Of course, he could lose more Hispanics than the Blacks he might gain.
I think that the thing that I have seen that has made him so attractive, is his rah-rah Americanism. We have seen what the left can do given power in this country, and it isn't pretty. The world is a mess thanks to Obama, Hillary, and Kerry and their feckless foreign policy. We are still mired in the 7th year of the Obama Recession. A lot of people in this country are not optimistic, but rather pessimistic about our future, and that is very much because we voted someone into office who really doesn't love America first. What Trump seems to be doing for a lot of people is allowing them to believe in a better, greater, America again. Sure, most of his Republican competitors have somewhat similar views. But, they just don't have nearly the ability to inspire belief that we can really turn the Obama malaise around. I think that a lot of people sense that Trump can, and that is why they are wiling to take him seriously.
I remain of the belief that Trump's appeal is temporary. Nor do I believe he is supported by conservatives. I think it comes down to this - he says what is on his mind, whether he has thought it through or not. Ordinary people react with inner revulsion to the everlasting narrative promoted by the progressive/media/education complex and are delighted to have someone steamroll it. Take the immigration thing alone - decent Republicans (Krauthammer, Will, etc) insist on begging the question of whether mass deportation can be done. Yes, it CAN be done. Whether is should is quite another matter, but yes, the United States can choose to remove illegals from its territory and set about doing it. Trump doesn't play cute with this. People like it. Maybe the next thing he will take on is the sacrament of diversity itself. People will like that, too.
thank you Althouse!
There aren't enough people entranced by trump to worry about it. If the other Republicans want to cut into his lead, all they need to do is look at the top 2 or 3 things he's going on about and care enough to take a sensible position on them. Most of his "supporters" will bail the first chance they get to switch to a more traditional candidate who also supports these issues.
Warning to the readers: The real grackle, myself, has a thumbnail of a self-portrait with gray hair and a pink background embedded within the comment. I take no responsibility for any comment by the false grackle.
Take the immigration thing alone - decent Republicans … insist on begging the question of whether mass deportation can be done.
Cautionary to commentors when responding to the rise of Trump:
No matter how dismayed you may be over Trump’s ascendancy and no matter how soon you think it’s coming to an end, it’s probably never a good strategy to frame your explanation for his success in the form of an insult to the people who are supporting him.
That is of course if the intent is debate rather than tone-deaf, if unintended, ad hominem.
Read the article at:
http://tinyurl.com/puucxfy
I think perhaps the only thing that can bring Trump low is something he says or does himself, rather than conventional barbs from banal directions.
About the family: True, the sister judge is a bit old for a new gig on the SCOTUS(six years older than my ancient self) but her academic credentials are impeccable.
B.A. in 1958 from Mount Holyoke College, her M.A. in 1962 from Columbia University, and her J.D. in 1974 from Hofstra University School of Law.
She was appointed a lower federal court judge by President Reagan upon the recommendation of Governor Kean of New Jersey (they wanted a woman) and a appelate judge by President Clinton in 1999 upon the recomendation of Senator Robert Toricelli (partially maybe because Clinton anticipated trouble in getting his judges confirmed - she was one of a pair maybe.)
Not actually. According to her bio she was nominated by Reagan, not “appointed,” and was confirmed by the United States Senate. A bit of a difference, eh, readers?
It's the middle of August 2015, Trump isn't going anywhere close to the nomination come Feb 2016 when the voting starts. You heard it here first! Still, I for one is glad he's in the race, he is a master showman and pretty smart too. I am enjoying his putting the fear of god into professional politicians who don't seem to have a clue how to deal with this man. Gov Walker for instance has BOMBED recently on the question of the 14th amendment, he refuses to take a position? GEE WIZ Gov, nexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxt!
We need an answer to the question, "what was the one big thing that Obama fixed?" I can't think of anything he made better. Certainly nothing big.
Blogger james conrad said...You heard it here first!
Pfft! No we didn't.
Eminent domain is not a conservative cause.
You are very much mistaken, N.N. It's called Kelo.
The economic wing of the Republican party is about as upset at Kelo as you and I are upset about Roe v. Wade.
Both cases, by the way, involve abuse of language. Kelo wrote the word "public" out of the 5th Amendment. The government can take your property and give it to me. See the problem?
Imagine a Hillary administration that seized the property of X, Y, and Z and gave it Donald Trump.
More on Kelo here.
My non-Republican read from my facebook feed: Trump is not a danger to the other candidates. The people who like him are not the dyed-in-the-wool conservatives. They're not going to vote in the primaries, and they won't vote in great numbers in the general. There's one reason, and one reason only that Trump and Sanders are able to do what they are doing. Anti-immigration populism. The entire political class is pro-amnesty and pro-immigration, and about 4% of the population agrees with them. Trump and Sanders have found their niche, which happens to be almost 70% of Americans. This is a big issue, the American people do not want another twenty-five million illegal immigrants that we have to debate over and over for the next fifty years. The political class does. Yes, Trump is a showman, and half his support is simply because he's unrepentantly un-PC. Yes, Sanders gives Dems cover to support what they have always supported, blatant socialism. But without immigration, they wouldn't be where they are.
Trump will be for or against whatever looks to be the best "deal" for the moment.
But he has the most marvellous set of enemies and detractors of any candidate since Nixon!
AA thinks Obamacare fixed our health care mess? GOD ALMIGHTY, earth to AA , our health care mess is still a mess.
"AA thinks Obamacare fixed our health care mess? GOD ALMIGHTY, earth to AA , our health care mess is still a mess."
No. You are misreading me. Obama put through an elaborate, controversial, flawed reform, and anyone who sat back and hoped that government could "fix it, daddy" was childish. The big, ambitious fixes Trump is talking about will be at least as bad.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
"I take no responsibility for any comment by the false grackle."
The false grackle is a starling.
Trump is smart to focus on immigration, the fact that mass deportation or repeal the 14th amend. is not going to happen does not really matter, what matters is the entire nation is talking about this issue.
According to Milton Friedman, the only way illegal immigration works in a welfare state is because.....it's illegal! I think he is correct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nniuaZuP_vo
Obamacare was not a positive step. It has failed to achieve any measurable objective even it set out for itself. Redefining objectives to a lower level while increasing the cost for govern!ent and the insured means the whole financial justification was a fraud.
""It is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down. That doesn't mean it's going to be easy. It doesn't mean it's going to happen right away or the way I'd like it to happen. It doesn't mean that we're not going to make mistakes. But there shouldn't be any confusion here: The federal government is fully engaged. And I'm fully engaaged"
Eminent domain is not a conservative cause.
Of course eminent domain is a conservative cause! Communism is eminent domain. Karl Marx and Das Kapital? That whole book is about eminent domain. The concept is simple: you have property and the state takes it.
Saying Donald Trump love eminent domain is saying that he's a socialist. He's not a conservative. So, again, kudos to Althouse for bringing this up.
The only concern is the liberal abuse of the Fifth Amendment
I would say "negation" rather than "abuse." The Fifth Amendment protects us from eminent domain. It protects us from the state seizing our property. Yes, the Constitution admits, the state may need to seize some property. But if and when the state does so, there must be just compensation.
The 5th Amendment states specifically that eminent domain is limited to "public use." When the Supreme Court re-wrote the 5th Amendment, their goal was to increase state power and allow socialism to thrive.
It might be handy for right-wingers to use the term "fascist" to describe Mr. Trump's version of capitalism, which thrives on the heavy hand of the government to give money to a privileged few. He is not a free market guy.
I'm sorry AA, but saying whatever Trump is going to do on immigration will be at least as bad as Obamacare betrays some other gripe against Trump. Obama wanted to distort a market against the grain of human nature, economics, and, arguably, the Constitution. Trump wants to stop illegal immigration which is what countries / nation states / tribes have done for thousands of years. It goes with the grain of human nature, economics, and the Constitution.
Big difference when ironing out the details of whatever immigration plan is proposed. Answers will be obvious with no need for a Jon Gruber.
Not sure if Ann is right, that Trump couldn't make our national healthcare system better. He has a couple of advantages. He appears a bit smarter than Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. He isn't wedded to their statist socialism. He isn't enamored with govt solutions to every problem. Instead, he is happier with capitalistic solutions - which means ones where price signals aren't intentionally suppressed by the heavy hand of govt. And, he has that Warton MBA. As usual, I think that Romney would do better, and many of the Republican candidates could come up with solutions maybe as good. The one place where I think that he might do better is with the bully pulpit in getting the nation behind the changes. This is going to be hard, with so much of the MSM reflexively opposing any reform or repeal in their role of Dem party protectors.
"Obamacare was not a positive step. It has failed to achieve any measurable objective even it set out for itself."
That's quite often the case when things are "fixed." The cure is worse than the disease.
But some people like to see fixing being done. These people are not conservatives.
No. You are misreading me. Obama put through an elaborate, controversial, flawed reform, and anyone who sat back and hoped that government could "fix it, daddy" was childish. The big, ambitious fixes Trump is talking about will be at least as bad.
Agrees, actually more likely worse. The idea that armed govt agents will be required to round up illegal immigrants for mass deportation in order to "fix" the problem is really weird.
"Big difference when ironing out the details of whatever immigration plan is proposed. Answers will be obvious with no need for a Jon Gruber."
Think about how childish that sounds.
The answers are obvious.
That's how I thought about the world when I was 16, which was 5 years before I was allowed to vote.
Government cannot do anything complicated.
There has to be just simple goals. Like "unconditional surrender" in WWII.
Obama misses that since he has a complicated mind and has successfully executed some complicated schemes. But that was just him and a small group of associates and staffers, since there was no way he share his visions with the public and stay in office.
"But some people like to see fixing being done. These people are not conservatives. "
So conservatives must only try to stop the boulder from rolling down the hill? No chance to push it back up?
Thank you for the update. I was stuck on "fix" in the sense taking something broken and making it better. It's clear now you were using a different definition--identify something big and make a big change to it.
Saint Croix:
I actually don't like the principle of eminent domain, but I understand its application in limited cases. For instance in breaking monopolies. I also understand that there is a fine separation of private and public interests. I would restrict the use of fascism to describe an incestuous relationship between these two domains, but that still does not establish an objective and reproducible threshold.
nor shall private property be taken for public use
What is the limit of appropriation? Would a public mandate that effectively leases private property or restricts its use be considered taken?
My impression is that this is an unsettled area of The Constitution where penumbras hide in plain sight. In this regard, it is a conservative cause. However, unlike abortion, where a human life objectively begins its evolution from conception, there is a negotiable threshold.
Total agree with AA: Trump is an unmitigated clusterfuck. We have no idea what he will do and how he will do it, despite all the smoke and mirrors coming from his mouth.
Saint Croix:
I am also open to the idea of repentance. I am aware that some or many pro-life people began life as pro-choice. They converted after they matured and understood the full consequences of the "choice", which was otherwise appealing for its own sake. I was one of those naive, emotional youngsters. I will afford the same opportunity for growth to others, especially for lesser violations of civil and human rights.
Trump is resonating.
Some people say we can't stop birthright citizenship, it's in the 14th amendment!
If we can restrict particular aspects of speech even with the first amendment, and restrict various types of guns even with the second amendment, we can restrict certain aspects of citizenship with the 14th amendment. Just find a penumbra.
The "could not stay in office" in my post above is wrong under the American system, except that he would not have been reelected.
And he would not have succeeded in these schemes due to immediate widespread opposition, if he had stated what he was intending.
And I still say that though he has "succeeded" in getting these schemes through, the schemes themselves fill ultimately fail because they are too complicated in execution, even if you should be one of those who think the goals worthwhile.
I don't care if he is an unmitigated clusterfuck, he's my unmitigated clusterfuck.
Although not a lawyer, birthright citizenship under the 14th amend is fairly settled in american law according to many legal scholars however, that does not mean that just because someone is born here we have to admit everyone in that persons village who is family related, which we do now. This "chain immigration" statute was written by congress and it's my understanding this can and should be changed by congress. Naturally, none of this is going to happen until the borders are secure.
birthright citizenship
Interesting how the Constitution has suddenly become carved in stone, unchangeable.
Trump is talking about things that need to be fixed, like immigration and the fucked up Obamacare in a way that politicians won't do because they are beholden to lobbyists. I think that is his appeal. I don't equate what he is saying with Big government, conservative or not. It used to be that the politicians who were governors would argue they are far away from DC, now here is a candidate who says he is not a politician and he will do what politicians don't have the courage to do and he doesn't have to kowtow to big money people.
Every candidate is wrong about something.
You have to be a moron with a sinecure and guaranteed health care to call Obamacare a clusterfuck. It has done precisely what it set out to do, decrease the fraction of uninsured, at a lower cost than predicted. And, because of this success, it has steadily become more popular.
Althouse's petty frustration at the failure of her Scotty in the face of actual politicians seems to have lowered her IQ by 30 points.
The border will be secure when the laws against harboring illegal aliens internally are enforced. No jobs, instant arrest and deportation when discovered by any official agency - Federal, State, or local - etc., and - obviously - no "social benefits" of any kind.
Gruber was right! Enough people were fooled.
And, oh yeah! No tolerance for "nullification," "interposition," or other forms of seditious behavior by local governments.
If you want to know what a clusterfuck really looks like examine the popularity of the Iraq war.
ARM
Obamacare has indeed done what it set out to do. Consolidated the insurance industry, raised costs. The popularity graph you link does not illustrate much enthusiasm.
Alas, we soldier on.
Find a graph that shows how keen people are on the costs and benefits of their insurance now versus before.
Trump will not be hurt at all among "conservatives" by the fact that he is not a "conservative."
This is because almost none of the GOPers who call themselves "conservative" are really at all "conservatives."
Trump is loud, Trump is rich, Trump is angry, Trump insults famous politicians and all they can do is smile about it.
How could he possibly be more "conservative?" He is the purest expression imaginable of what the GOP means by "conservative."
Tomorrow, I will be filing paperwork to register a 501(c)3 organization. Conservatives for Trumping Illegal Immigration will accept your contributions as soon as I can rent a post office box.
Ah...early retirement. Thanks, Donald.
Big Mike: Althouse comes across as a person who's genuinely frightened of Trump, but I don't perceive why.
I don't think "frightened" is the right word. As long as we're indulging in derogatory amateur psychologizing of motives, here's my take:
I get the impression that most Trump supporters are pretty cynical people. True-believin' types will of course be found among them, as is always true in politics, but there are fewer of these types, with nowhere near the level of Dear Leader worship, than among the Obamanauts in previous elections.
Now, Althouse is someone who likes to believe that she is a sophisticated voter, well above the level of people who fall for crass political manipulation. Consciously or not, she's ashamed of her impervious-to-reason girl-crush on the Obamessiah. (As she ought to be.) Her rather hysterical reaction to Trump* is a projection of her own embarrassing susceptibility onto other actors.
*As exemplified in this current flailing attempt to find some rhetorical purchase in the meaning of "conservative". This pointless "no true conservative" feint in itself indicates somebody stuck in dead political categories.
It is plain and simple -- majority voters are looking for someone who is not a politician representing either party (because both are bad) and who can take on the liberal media and stick it. Especially tea party and conservative voters and disgruntled center right Democrats are waiting for someone to take on the liberal media who hoisted Obama on them. Trump is doing all that.
"But some people like to see fixing being done. These people are not conservatives."
Justice Thomas would like the SCOTUS to fix the Leftist mistakes and is no doubt conservative.
Tossing aside originalism is a mistake that is Leftist, while bringing back concepts of originalism is conservative.
bbkingfish: How could he possibly be more "conservative?" He is the purest expression imaginable of what the GOP means by "conservative."
Remarkably, bbkingfish has wandered dangerously close to perspicacity here.
Hagar said...
The border will be secure when the laws against harboring illegal aliens internally are enforced. No jobs, instant arrest and deportation when discovered by any official agency - Federal, State, or local - etc., and - obviously - no "social benefits" of any kind.
This is how immigration can be "fixed." There is no need for armed troops to deport illegal aliens. If they can't get jobs and don't get any welfare benefits, they will "self deport."
FleetUSA said...
Total agree with AA: Trump is an unmitigated clusterfuck. We have no idea what he will do and how he will do it, despite all the smoke and mirrors coming from his mouth.
Except for Obama's plan to make electricity more expensive and bankrupt coal producing plants that used older, polluting technology, we had no idea how he would "fundamentally transform" America or what he would do. He changed his mind on how to "fix" the health care system pre- and post-election.
Trump's followers aren't necessarily conservative. What they care about is immigration, and that is also a big issue on the left for at least some people like Bernie Sanders. So showing that Trump isn't a conservative won't matter. All they care about is immigration.
We have in the past...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback
Obamacare fixed nothing related to health care. There are no more health care providers now that before. The only thing Obamacare did was shift who paid.
Quit lying, Althouse and everybody else, that Obama tried to solve a problem regarding health care. It is a dumb, bold lie. And repeating a lie won't make it so.
IANAL either, James C., but it is my understanding that "birthright citizenship" (anchor babies) is far from settled law, although I'm pretty sure there will be a 97% consensus approving it among "legal scholars", of whom approx 97% are leftists. In fact, none other than Harry Reid introduced a bill in the 1990s to exclude the children of illegal immigrants. (That must have been before "motor voter" became the Democrat method of choice for registering illegals to vote.)
Among the developed nations, only the US and Canada (2 of 40) allow it, and these developed nations in the recent past have all repealed it:
Australia (2007)
New Zealand (2005)
Ireland (2005)
France (1993)
India (1987)
Malta (1989)
UK (1983)
Portugal (1981)
Supreme courts cases that only addressed it tangentially conflict on the issue, as do the authors of the 14th amendment itself.
The incentive this gives foreigners to come here, legally and illegally, just before childbirth cannot be understated. Not only does this grant the child instant citizenship, but under Ted Kennedy's infamous chain migration legislation, grants the entire extended family future immigration rights and fast track to citizenship. And also the birth and postnatal care will be free in our first-rate hospitals instead of a dirt-floored hut in some third world toilet.
A recent article stated the current price charged by a number of companies to provide US birth to foreigners who can afford it is $19,000 - $99,000.
Anchor Babies Now Big Business
I am not a Trump fan, but he is resonating with a solid majority of the voters on the issue of immigration and thumbing his nose at our "betters" in the "unbiased" "objective" "news" media, academia, RINOs, and the Obama administration. If a real conservative like Cruz could pick these up, he'd have a chance.
Shorter Althouse: Conservatives aren't ever supposed to accomplish anything.
(Because they're Conservatives dummy, and Conservatives aren't supposed to want change)
I, False Grackle, want to see caravans of weeping Mexicans headed south. Abuelitas with baskets of warm tortillas, teary-eyed Fox News anchors, trailers full of lawncare equipment. The bridges of the Rio Grande festooned with banners proclaiming: "¡Vuelve pronto! No te olvides de completar el formulario DS-230".
BBKKKingfish:
"Tomorrow, I will be filing paperwork to register a 501(c)3 organization. Conservatives for Trumping Illegal Immigration will accept your contributions as soon as I can rent a post office box."
No retirement for you this way.
Your application for 501(c) status will be subjected to delays up to 5+ years, you'll be subjected to IRS audits, FBI investigations, and surprise inspections by DHS, EPA, ATF and midnight raids by SWAT teams. You have to spend $100K on lawyers to fill out the exhaustive questionnaires about your kids' Facebook accounts, the contents of your prayers to St Saul of Alinsky, and who your donors are.
Of course, you can avoid all that and get instant approval. You just need to substitute "Conservative" with a term more amenable to the Lerneristas(tm), such as "Progressive", "Democrat", "Marxist", "Radical Leftling Nutjob", et al.
Also, Althouse, if you want to say political conservatives are indeed radical because of the complete victory of Leftists, then say so directly. Conservatives who wish to roll back the expansive federal government are trying to conserve what has worked (and are radical), believing in individualism and individual rights to keep the massive federal bureaucracy at bay.
There are two problems with hoping Trump's non-conservatism will derail him. For one, name a candidate whom the base doesn't have concerns about whether they'll govern as a conservative. The base has played Charlie Brown to the establishment's Lucy on the issues enough that many of Trump's alternatives are hindered in this respect. One thing Trump does display that helps him is he doesn't seem to care what the establishment thinks.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the nominee for the Republicans lately has not exactly been the one conservatives would prefer. In this kind of divided field, unless the conservatives settle on a single candidate soon, Trump has a path to victory just by maintaining a bloc of moderate types who are fed up. Sure, it's an emotional and stupid vote, but the country seems to have given up on having smart and educated voters some time ago in favor of popularity contests and sound bite wars (the precursor to Twitter?)
geokstr said...
IANAL either, James C., but it is my understanding that "birthright citizenship" (anchor babies) is far from settled law,
Well, i dunno about that but, John Yoo & David Rivkin, who are hardly leftist recently discussed this and their opinion is, it's a done deal, birthright citizenship is a fact of law.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4437779502001/is-the-supreme-court-misinterpreting-the-14th-amendment/?#sp=show-clips
I would argue, why waste time on amending/altering/litigating the constitution if you can't secure the border? It seems to me that if one secures the border and your focus is on that task, a lot of other problems are eliminated.
The solution in this case, should Trump himself be unacceptable, is for his rivals to steal some of his thunder by doing more of what he does, and speaking more as he speaks.
More red meat for the angry mob in other words. The mob is justifiably angry, so this should be acceptable.
The facts, even just those of the Bureau of Labor statistics, are perfectly clear, and are easily used to make any opponent look like a foolish elitist.
Obamacare did more than raise taxes. It also raised the poverty level. The frantic effort to force its passage and preserve its function is evidence that the economy had not recovered, and now we are treading in a pool of $18 trillion debt. It addressed neither affordability (i.e. cost) nor availability (i.e. resources). At least not in certain locales which are heavily subsidized through redistributive change and financial leverage. Nor did it address the social conditions (e.g. violence) that prevents universal health care and other services. Excessive immigration was another likely motive to preserve, and actually exacerbate, the status quo. As is "planning" and other [select] population control mechanisms.
Gahrie:
Conservatives are conservationists, rational and measured. They resist change for its own sake or with ulterior/selective motives. The Declaration of Independence and the process of constitutional amendment offers insight into the American character.
Ann Althouse said...Again: not a conservative. Hopey-changey.
I think it's pretty clear Trump's not a conservative, really by his own admission, so going through a lot of effort to prove that seems like a waste. The better question is whether he's someone people on the Right, including conservatives, should support. I think the answer is no, but the "something needs to be done; this is something; this must be done" impulse is alarmingly persuasive with large portions of the public.
Besides, isn't Hopey-changey what you voted for the first time Obama ran, Professor? Maybe Trump has a shot at your vote!
There are 14 months to go before the election. An eternity in politics and plenty of time to indulge in various "message sending," etc. Maybe some of it will even get through to our politial classes, though I would not bet on it.
And for the record, Madame, Obama did not set out to fix anything regarding "health care;" just how it was to be paid for, and in the process he has not only totally screwed up the medical insurance industry with his big, complicated plan, but he has also done untold damage to actual health care in this country.
And the birthright business need not figure.
The real problems are illegal immigration over the border, which in truth should be a trivial thing to fix given the will. This is easily sold by citing labor market conditions, median incomes, etc. This directly affects the lower quintiles of the population and can be made into a genuinely populist issue.
The other is Sanders thing, H1b's, which are grossly abused.
This directly affects incomes and job security in the mid-upper quintiles. Any number of nasty examples can be found - Disney, So Cal Edison, etc.
This can be made into a direct attack on the corpocracy.
Both of these things are easily packaged into "small" laws.
Or rather, the repeal of certain laws and the enforcement of others.
There is no need for multi-thousand page debacles or the forced restructuring of industries.
You have to enjoy the Left's insistence on constitutionally-protected birthright citizenship. It's right there in the text, after all! Sure, so is the death penalty as punishment, but you know, evolving standards of decency and all that. Sure, the 1st and 2nd Amendments pretty plainly prevent gov. laws restricting fundamental rights, but the Founders couldn't have imagined the internet or semiautomatic firearms, so it's ok to disregard the plain text.
The Founders apparently did anticipate a large US allowing more then 20% of its southern neighbor to come over against the wishes of the majority of the US population, though, along with the nearly-complete breakdown of law enforcement w/r/t immigration. Stick to the Constitution! Ain't no penumbras no emanations here.
The inability to get the "message" from the people to the leadership is not because it isn't getting through.
There is an old Tagalog saying - in English -
It's hard to wake a man who is pretending to sleep.
AJ's point was simple. Nothing has changed in 20-30 years. All our big problems are worse, and our government is paralyzed. Example: Once Tom Daschall got inside the DC beltway K-street warp, the corruption enticement overwhelmed and Americans cease to exist. It's the blackhole of politics. Everyone falls in. Obama didn't fix health care, he made it worse. He made it more expensive. Trump is promising big changes. Will he deliver? Probably not. but we have that hope-y thing. Again.
Hopey.
Michael said...
Obamacare has indeed done what it set out to do.
Reduce the percentage of uninsured. There were easier ways to do this but they were not practical politically. It is a compromise that has worked imperfectly, but better than I expected.
The popularity graph you link does not illustrate much enthusiasm.
Compared to what? Compared to the Iraq war it has been a smashing success. Given how politically polarized the issue has been, getting more than half the voters on side means that it is pretty successful with those who matter, the people who voted for Obama and wanted a reduction in the number of uninsured. Obviously those who didn't care about the fate of the uninsured don't support it. Fortunately they are in a minority.
Hagar said...
in the process he has not only totally screwed up the medical insurance industry with his big, complicated plan, but he has also done untold damage to actual health care in this country.
Why not provide some data to support this view rather than regurgitate Republican party establishment talking points. The Republican party establishment that quite clearly could give a shit about the lives of working people in this country.
ARM,
It has increased the number of unemployed, and especially the underemployed, which has been a feature of this recovery.
The next downturn may be just around the corner, in which case it may be truly terrible.
This through increasing cost of coverage everywhere, at all levels.
ARM
Compare instead to the Crimean War, the first one. Or maybe to the Treaty of Ghent. Or the Yellow Fever epidemic.
I'll ask again if you can show a cool graph indicating the people's satisfaction with the cost of their insurance and the benefits the insurance provides
See? Many of us agree that the Republican Party establishment doesn't give s#$% about working people, no more so than the Democratic Party establishment. Hence populists.
buwaya puti said...
It has increased the number of unemployed
Are you capable of understanding quantitative data?
Conservatives are conservationists, rational and measured.
Yes, of principles and culture. Changes intended to restore fundamental principles and a healthy culture are Conservative.
They resist change for its own sake
Definitely.
or with ulterior/selective motives.
Depends on the selected outcomes. Conservatives would welcome changes that restored the balance of power among the government's branches, or that protected innocent life by banning abortion.
The Declaration of Independence
You mean the document calling for open rebellion against the established authority of the king?
and the process of constitutional amendment offers insight into the American character.
I'm not seeing this.
Conservationism does not mean not changing things.
It doesn't matter that None of what Trump promises will ever happen, in that Congress will never appropriate the money for it, or change the Constitution for it, or pass the laws authorizing it (whether we're talking about his wall, his ending birthright citizenship, his mass deportations, or his blocking of remittances to Mexico). Pointing any of this out to Trumpists--or pointing out that Trump is as much "establishment" or liberal (both in his favoring eminent domain abuse and single payer health care reform)--will mean nothing to his supporters. They are mad, and they like how much he pisses off the "right" people (I.e, others who are "establishment" or "liberal"). Their support for him is a matter of signaling, a matter of faith and a rejection of what they see as a current system that's failed the country. Your attacks only make them love him more.
Some Trumpists (who comment here) are acting in good faith, and will explain their disgust with the way things are, others stick to name-calling and straw men, but none of them care if you point out how much this all smells or at best will make the very problems they're trying to fix worse. As far as they're concerned, they're done listening.
We'll see how it all shakes out. As I fear, it'll lead to the Clinton restoration, and we can all blame each other for who brought it on, but a democracy gets what it deserves. We let it get to this point, and we'll reap what we now sow.
Trumps rise is because the political class is ruling against the will of the people in regards to illegal immigration in general and specifically the GOP's selling out on the issue to serve corporate interests over American workers. The Democrats are just as bad as the GOP on this issue and for the same reasons.
SGT Ted said...
Trumps rise is because the political class is ruling against the will of the people in regards to illegal immigration in general and specifically the GOP's selling out on the issue to serve corporate interests over American workers. The Democrats are just as bad as the GOP on this issue and for the same reasons.
Amen. The rise of the oligarchs has captured both parties.
ARM,
Are you capable of recognizing when you aren't seeing the full story ?
That unemployment rate figure is extremely selective.
Take the decline in labor force participation and the mix of full/part time work into account and you have something else - and no, swapping U6 for U3 doesn't cut it.
Critics of Trump fail to realize that the GOP and the Dems have already sold out on these issues collectively. Cruz and Rand Paul are in the minority functionally on these issues.
Critics of Trump can only say that Trump is just like the establishment that has already betrayed them. Which is not a winning argument to endorse the alternatives to Trump as the better choice.
mebbe he shoulda lied us in to a unnecessary/costly war and left the economy in shambles on his way out?
Gahrie:
First, I wasn't criticizing your statement, but happened to choose it as a focal point.
Depends on the selected outcomes.
Typically a restoration of what is considered to be "original intent". A balanced reconciliation of individual dignity, intrinsic value, and natural imperatives.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate... But when a long train of abuses...
and
Article V - Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary...
Change is not pursued and is possible, but not for light and transient causes.
buwaya puti said...
That unemployment rate figure is extremely selective.
Not it's not. It is the same metric that we have used for decades. It just doesn't say what you want it to say.
The decline in workforce participation has been predicted for decades, based on the aging out of the boomers. This is in fact the main valid argument for high levels of immigration, to pay for the fucking boomers retirement.
ARM
Are you capable of reading this chart?
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15000000
Michael said...
Are you capable of reading this chart?
As already noted, the aging out of boomers has been a foregone conclusion for many decades.
No, its not what was used for decades. It has been reformulated several times. And it was never considered definitive either.
It was popular and handy in the media, but that's it.
And, more than anything, it was not designed to track a situation with falling labor force participation rates.
Which are still falling, I think either June or July was another record low.
But falling labor force participation is not because of aging boomers. If anything labor force participation has increased for older workers. The big hit is among the young to middle age cohorts. This isn't good.
To "fix" something is to repair it until it is no longer broken.
It is still broken.
It is, therefore, not fixed.
buwaya puti said...
But falling labor force participation is not because of aging boomers.
An unquestionably false statement. There are other factors, but retirement of boomers is the big one.
Can't link anything on this #%%%$$ Android browser, but its pretty typical to figure if you take the fall in labor force participation into account since 1/2009 you can add @7% to all the U-numbers.
And note that U-6 shows way more extreme behavior than U-3
Buwaya, you will never get the unreasonable guy to agree that his Great Leader has feet of clay.
Althouse nails it.
Yes of course.
Note that they include "increase in disability" and increase in college, as structural trends, both are well known ways to deal with poor employment prospects. The increase in disability claims since 2008 has been remarkable. Americans aren't getting more decrepit, they are just looking for ways to obtain extended unemployment benefits.
And then there are the women leaving the labor force, which is supposed to be for reasons not related to the economy.
And the "fact check" people handwave away anything that they don't classify as structural, about half.
So they plausibly argue away half, therefore the other half doesn't exist. That is of course another way to tell a rotten lie.
ARM 11:26 AM
A word of friendly advice. You're not smart enough to contend with buwaya on a rational basis. Go ad hom and disappear in a cloud of ink, is your best move. Nobody will judge you, well I mean that cake is already baked.
Althouse, by "fixed" did you mean "cut its nuts off?"
Actually, if you want to stick to the U-numbers, inadequate as they are (look up Bernanke calling this stuff "optimistic") have a look at the spread between U-3 and U-6.
That was normally 3-4%, but since 2009 was consistently at 5% (where it is now) or more, approaching 7%.
That's a sign of "discouraged" workers and a shift to part time.
The simplest way to identify a crank is find someone who has a singular explanation for a complex phenomena. The decline in workforce participation is a classic complex problem with many interacting parts. Cranks are people who believe that it is all Obama's fault or even more crazily that it is all Obamacare's fault, while ignoring the obvious unquestionable trends at work.
An author on Market Watch thinks the DOW could go to 5,000. Think that would get some attention?
10,000 probably more likely, or somewhere between, but yes, it can happen.
Second, this idea of fixing one big thing. That's what Obama did with health care. He focused on one big problem that needed fixing, and he devoted his presidency to that one great reform. Oh, but you don't like that fix, perhaps.
What's with the "perhaps"? For the last couple years before I retired I spent more for healthcare coverage that was not as good as what I had before. I'm far from alone. The number of people without coverage after Obamacare is about what it was before Obamacare. Really, Althouse, you're bending over backwards for this guy Obama. Hopefully you're embarrassed about your 2008 vote to the point of humiliation, but you don't need to pretend that Obamacare worked or is working.
What makes you think you're going to like Trump's big fix?
Until I see details, I'm not sure I will like it. And he's not going to offer details because that's how you lose elections.
He's mostly threatening to fix illegal immigration, and sure, that, like health care, is a huge problem. How do you think Trump's ideas about that are going to work in practice?
Undoing anchor babies would be a good first step. Deporting criminals would be a good second step. That would have kept Katie Steinle alive -- do you care? Securing the border would be a good third step, particularly insofar as it's needed to stop drug trafficking and infiltration by jihadists. Keeping track of people who are here on student visas and assuring that they either convert to an H1B or leave when the visas expire would be a good fourth step. I don't understand your objection to these steps.
You think that will be less of a clusterfuck than Obamacare? It will be more. Much, much more.
No, though mostly because nothing could be a bigger clusterfuck than Obamacare. If you'd talk to real people next time you leave your sheltered enclave in Madison you might learn something about Obamacare that you might not like to learn. And as to whether fixing illegal immigration would be a nasty clusterfuck, it depends on your appreciation of the problem. If you were a poor black person in the inner city who wanted to work his way to a better life, you might have a different appreciation of the scope of the problem than as a tenured female faculty member in a lily white college town. Likewise if you were a poor white in Appalachia thrown out of work by Obama's self-declared "war on coal," you might have a different appreciation of competing for low-wage jobs with myriads of undocumented aliens as you try to give your family a better life than they'd get on welfare.
You are a very cruel and thoughtless woman, sometimes, Professor.
Nichevo said...
A word of friendly advice.
I am glad you are finding buwaya's trite repetition of Republican party talking points so compelling. Maybe you could get a grip on some actual numbers at some point in the future.
buwaya puti said...
So they plausibly argue away half,
You concede that they can explain half of the phenomena. That is a lot better than you have achieved so far.
Obamacare is only one factor, there being many others. I didn't say it was the only cause of poor labor market conditions.
The point is that employment has been poor since the last recession, and this recovery has been very weak.
The official employment rate is a poor guage of real employment conditions, which most people still guage as poor, and they are right.
This is one of the primary causes of the populist outbreak.
ARM
The aging of the boomers does not explain the magnitude of the decline of participants in the workforce. You are wrong.
It does not matter who is at fault for the stunning numbers but there they are. You are such a reasonable person, surely you have some explanation for why the numbers don't matter.
No, I concede that they have an argument about half the phenomena, which I dispute - see what I said re disability, etc.
The other half they don't bother to explain, nor do they concede its significance.
buwaya puti said...
Obamacare is only one factor, there being many others.
So what are those other factors, give percentages in your assessment of their relative importance.
Michael said...
The aging of the boomers does not explain the magnitude of the decline of participants in the workforce.
As noted, I did not claim this was the sole cause. It appears to be the largest single cause. I am happy to concede that there are multiple factors at work here. There is no compelling evidence that Obamacare is a numerically important factor.
ARM, I don't feel like doing that much work, it was a long week. I am happy to lay back and watch him gut you like a fish.
Nichevo said...
ARM, I don't feel like doing that much work, it was a long week. I am happy to lay back and watch him gut you like a fish
So you concede that you are too lazy to make the effort to understand the issues but you are certain that buwaya's hacky posts must be true. You know what that makes you, don't you? A Republican party hack. The stupid party needs it's stupid members.
Just today, ARM, just today; and it's not my topic, now is it? One may not speculate? I merely passed the remark that you are not buwaya's equal and since you're not a good loser, despite your vast experience at losing, you should probably find some other fly to de-wing.
@Nichevo, @buwaya puti, @Michael, you guys are helping ARM hijack the thread. Yes, he's lying, and he knows he's lying, but it's not in his interests to admit to it now or ever. Let's get back to Althouse's assertion that Trump working on illegal immigration will lead to an even worse clusterfuck than Obamacare. Do you agree? Or do you disagree?
Spectate. Stupid Android.
Oh no, Mike, not at all. Oh, for one thing Trump is very clever with this incremental approach and not having to cross the entire chasm in one step, or, worse yet, two. He's going to build a bridge and push it over the gap one section at a time.
It really is a refreshing approach to policy. It's actually quite doable and I'm beginning to think that Trump is underrated as a political thinker. Don't be the guy who says that doing something is impossible, to the guy who's doing it.
As for Althouse's thoughts, it's really hardly worth paying attention anymore. It's a pity really. The people praising her are - what's the difference between flattery and pandering again?
So the thread was "The issue that could break the trance Trump has on some conservatives." Could anything be stupider?
How can you hijack something that stupid? Although, Nichevo has admitted that he is just a Republican party drone so I guess putting him in a trance wouldn't be that hard.
Big Mike said...
Let's get back to Althouse's assertion that Trump working on illegal immigration will lead to an even worse clusterfuck than Obamacare.
As already noted, this assertion has a fatally flawed premise. Now, if she had said, "Trump working on illegal immigration will lead to an even worse clusterfuck than the Iraq war". Then you would have something to work with.
@geokstr said...
Interesting that anumber of countries recently repelaed it. That indicates that it is actually correct in principle, only they are overturning priciple
The Arab Gulf states never had it, and the majority of the residents on these counties are not citizens. It's good for monarchies.
The decline in workforce participation has been predicted for decades, based on the aging out of the boomers. This is in fact the main valid argument for high levels of immigration, to pay for the fucking boomers retirement.
i'm not really all that interested in either of those two measures, both can be manipulated/interpreted to suit your purposes.
The one that gets my blood boiling is the huge rise in SSDI cases.
@Nichevo, yes.
@ARM, you can't.
Fine re ARM.
Simple answer re Trump and immigration is that simple and uncontroversial legislation will do nearly all that's required to satisfy the public. A substantial and complete border fence which is quite feasible, plus relatively small annual costs in patrolling it (less than the size of the NYPD) will shut most of it down. This is just construction and expansion of the Border Patrol. Most of the problem goes away.
Limiting the H1b program is even simpler. Reduce the annual quota at least.
There is no perfect fix to everything, but there certainly is almost always a way to improve.
Gahrie said...
The one that gets my blood boiling is the huge rise in SSDI cases.
I agree with this. I went to see a guy about buying a boat. He could handle the boat with ease by himself and was off to play golf later that day. He was on disability. There are a lot of scams surrounding disability claims. Crooked doctors are a real problem. Much the same with the rise of prescription drug addiction.
Trump working on illegal immigration will lead to an even worse clusterfuck than Obamacare.
It actually could result in the Republican nominee losing the election, so maybe you should say a worse clusterfuck than Goldwater.
Now if Hillary Clinton continues to lose reputation and cannot be replaced, we have a Nixon McGovern type situation, unless Michael Bloomberg maybe or somebody else drops in, in which case we might have a third party candidate with a real chance.
Or we could have Trump running as a third party candidate - which might grab as much as 20% of the vote. Not sure if whoever is the Republican nominee could win even against Hillary Clinton.
But maybe we could also have Sanders running on the Green Party ticket.
So it's like 1948.
I don't know what states Trump running as a third party candidate could win - maybe Alabama and a few other southern states?
This could be a very interesting election that goes into the House of Representatives.
And picture this: Supposing Trump does get the nomination (but I can the Republican convention going to multiple ballots rather than nominating Trump) we could have:
Three New Yorkers (one lifetime, one longterm, and one carpetbagger) and one ex-New Yorker all running for president. (Trump, Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton, and Sanders)
On thing is for sure: Immigration in the Twentieth-First Century is headed in the same direction in American politics as slavery in the Nineteenth Century:
It will trump all other issues.
I didn't quite expect this to happen in 2016 - I thought this would be more like 1840or perhaps, 1844, but it's more like 1848 now.
buwaya puti said...8/23/15, 1:13 PM
Simple answer re Trump and immigration is that simple and uncontroversial legislation will do nearly all that's required to satisfy the public. A substantial and complete border fence which is quite feasible, plus relatively small annual costs in patrolling it (less than the size of the NYPD) will shut most of it down.
And what will you do with them when you catch them?
The immigration system is completely destroyable by people allowing themselves to get arrested.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/us/judge-increases-pressure-on-us-to-release-migrant-families.html
In a harshly critical opinion last month, the judge, Dolly M. Gee of Federal District Court for the Central District of California, found that the administration had violated the terms of a 1997 court-ordered settlement governing the treatment of unaccompanied children — minors who tried to enter illegally without a parent. The judge determined that the settlement, in a case known as Flores, covered all children in immigration detention, including those held with a parent.
After considering final arguments from both sides, Judge Gee issued an order late Friday to put her ruling into effect. She ordered the administration to release children “without unnecessary delay” to a parent or other relative in the United States and, in a significant new mandate, to release the parent as well unless that person posed a flight risk or a threat to national security. In the past, the settlement has been interpreted to require the release of children from secure detention within five days.
You don't need to be born in the United States to be an "anchor baby."
Enforcement will have to give way.
Eventually, enforcement will TRUMP every other value, and we simply are not going to go, I hope, to the extreme of planting land mines along the border, or paying Mexican drug gangs to kidnap and kill would-be migrants.
Also, there are lots of thing that nobody will openly argue against that Congress is not going to pass.
Arguing economics with a committed Leftist like "A Reasonable Man" is a silly venture. Leftists know economics so well they don't believe in Supply. After all "Supply Side Economics" is bad, Bad, BAD!!
Leftists are thus left only with Demand. Namely, they demand you be a part of the collective. Because: power.
By the way, right now, anyone applying for asylum is given a court date of November 29, 2019. (they decided not to into the 2020s)
The only people with earlier dates are high priority cases. They made some of the people crossing over last year, a high priority cases last year, I think, but there is a limit anyway.
You need to argue economics also woh Senator Jeffe Sessions and Donald Trump.
This is not a particularly important problem re increased border security. The vast majority of the border crossers arent minors, and the vast majority being intercepted at the border today are taken back across without undue complication. Almost 500,000 are returned annually IIRC.
The real point of border security is deterrence through a reduction in the success rate, and an increase in cost and effort for success. It does not need to be perfect to be much more effective than the present situation.
@buwaya puti, agreed. Note that we don't actually have to build a real fence along our southern border. Lockheed Martin has built a high altitude airship that floats in a geostationary position at 70,000 feet (twice the altitude where passenger jets fly) and could be outfitted with an array of sensors that can spot and track border intruders and relay location and movement to the Border Patrol so that the intruders can be assessed for dangerousness and interdicted at a place and time of the Border Patrol's choosing. Groups that are armed (drug smugglers or jihadists) could be dealt with in a way that provides maximum safety for the Patrol officers.
Here ya go, ARM.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/jobs-lost-recession-recovered_n_5459688.html
http://www.npr.org/2014/07/02/327058018/a-lost-generation-of-workers-the-cost-of-youth-unemployment
And, before you go, "BUT, BUT, FAUX NEWS!!" note the sources. Follow the links, read and learn something for once.
Big Mike said...
Let's get back to Althouse's assertion that Trump working on illegal immigration will lead to an even worse clusterfuck than Obamacare.
This is propaganda 101. Although the assertion that Obamacare is a clusterfuck is nonsense on sticks, Althouse know that you guys have an irrational hatred of Obamacare and she is trying to tie Trump to that hatred.
It might be just me, but when someone is trying to manipulate my thoughts I prefer them to do it a little less transparently. Respect the process.
buwaya puti said...8/23/15, 1:59 PM
This is not a particularly important problem re increased border security. The vast majority of the border crossers arent minors,
Now. But you could have this again later, like you did in 2014. It only stopped because the United states started advertising how dangerous the journey was, and pressured the Mexican government to make it more dangerous and risky, and confined a lot of them for an extended period of time, and made their cases a priority for harings, and this may not be able to be done in the future.
Also, the drug gangs in El Salvador maybe stopped threatening people so that they would leave.
But this can start up again anytime.
It's is not that you would have anyone able to come, but that you could have a certain subcategory that could, and you would not call that border control. It was this category that was being complained about last year, because there was no other upsurge in illegal migration.
and the vast majority being intercepted at the border today are taken back across without undue complication.
Only if they are Mexicans!!
Because only Mexicans can simply go back across the border. People from Central America need to be deported by airplane.
And, yes, they go back to Mexico, because it will not be recorded that they were deported, and they can try again. That's the incentive.
Almost 500,000 are returned annually IIRC
By the Obama Administration. It's because Obama was working on stopping border crossers that he waited some years for his executive action. He even got called the "Deporter-in-chief" but on the other wise of the issue they argued he was generating phony statistics and deporting people less from inside the country.
The real point of border security is deterrence through a reduction in the success rate,
The success rate has dropped anyway, although we are talking about success per attempt. But they still criticized President Obama.
It turned out that success in border control did not make it easier, but harder, to get amnesty for those already here, as any fool could have told you.
and an increase in cost and effort for success.
That has undoubtably happened. And the only practical way is to pay smugglers. But it is never enough for the border control people.
President Bush the Younger was of the opinion you needed to allow a legal way to go over for those people driven by economic or family considerations, because only that would shut down the business.
Drive up the cost and then give people a cheaper, legal, alternative.
It does not need to be perfect to be much more effective than the present situation.
But it does need to be perfect for any of the opponents of amnesty to agree with it - actually they wouldn't vote for it if it was perfect either.
All this talk of border control is just simply a poison pill, along with some other impossible conditions, like paying their taxes.
Members of Congress working on a comprehensive immigration bill, tried to find a metric so you could say that border control was achieved and now other provisions would go into effect. There is none.
@ AReasonableMan said...
Obamacare is a carefully postponed clusterfuck.
For instance I don't think anyone is really trying to collect the penalty or any overpaid subsidy.
It's definiitely not working. Insurance rates are going up.
Matt said...
Here ya go,
Notably neither article cites Obamacare as the cause of the problem, the issue in question. You will get no argument from me that the US economy was greatly damaged by the Great Bush Recession and is now more fragile that it was before the reign of Bush Jr. What is remarkable is that since the recession the US economy has outperformed every comparable economy and is arguably now in better shape than China's economy. I certainly don't think Obama gets most or even much credit for this, but he does get credit for not screwing the economy the way Bush/Greenspan did by ignoring the real estate bubble.
ARM, earlier you repeatedly said the drop in labor participation was due to baby boomers retiring and not a crappy economy. Those articles show that your earlier statements are lies, thus, you deflect.
Those articles are not about the cause of the problem, thus, it is not "notable" that Obamacare is not mentioned as the cause. Wow, you really are incapable of an honest discussion. I mean, I've been here long enough to know that but there is always a hope that you will some day live up to your claimed moniker. Instead, you continue to show you are about as "reasonable" as the DDR was "democratic".
Try being honest for once, you hack.
Also, look at the first chart, recoveries are typically as fast and strong as the recession that precedes it... except this one. Why? The Obama administrations job killing policies. If the President had done NOTHING the economy would have recovered faster and stronger than the milquetoast "recovery" that we have had.
Additionally, a major contributor to the recovery is something the President and liberals loathe: fracking. Without fracking, the economy would be far worse off than it is.
@Matt, take out Silicon Valley, Texas, and fracking, and the US economy is in desperate straits.
Matt said...
Also, look at the first chart, recoveries are typically as fast and strong as the recession that precedes it.
This is self evidently not true. The 2001 recession lingered and then recovered slowly at a similar rate to the current recession, the recovery lines are almost parallel. What this reflects is that the the US grows more slowly than it did in the past. This appears to be a permanent change, predating Obama and arguably predating Bush. The tech and housing bubbles were, in part, efforts to create the illusion of increasing wealth without the backing of real economic growth.
Matt said...
ARM, earlier you repeatedly said the drop in labor participation was due to baby boomers retiring and not a crappy economy.
In fact, I said the causes were complex with boomer retirement being the largest single cause.
In the future, when you call someone a liar, I would not undercut your slander by preceding it with a lie.
And most of those 20 - 30 years Republicans have had considerable if not unrivaled power. It's not a coincidence that nothing got done. Their entire philosophy of government is to do NOTHING.
Hiring a lazy person is a shame. Hiring a person who openly proclaims that they intend to not only do absolutely nothing, but to downsize the company into which they're hired, and how much they hate it in the first place, is not only overwhelmingly negligent, it's about as stupid a thing as one could do in a modern society. And yet Republicans do it with every election. Every two years, right on schedule. Hire someone who tells you how much the job sucks.
No wonder it's about time for another revolution.
The tech and housing bubbles were, in part, efforts to create the illusion of increasing wealth without the backing of real economic growth.
Even if the vast majority of the country aren't better off, Republicans will still consider it "real economic growth". Remember - it's only their donors they care about, not the voters.
You are self-evidently a moron. Look at the 2001 recession line. It hit bottom at 24 months and was fully recovered at month 46. The slope going into it and coming out of it are nearly identical. Now, go back re-read what I wrote above.
The recovery is a fast as the decline. The overall shape is shallower and longer than other recessions but that does not alter the comparison of the decline with its own recovery. Is this really that confusing? Had Obama's "recovery" been consistent with previous recoveries, it would have completed in month 50. NOT month 76 and not with the other issues that have been noted.
You want to blame the recession on Bush? Well, then you have to blame the shitty recovery on Obama. Be consistent with your principles. What am I thinking!? You have none. Liar. Hack.
It might be just me, but when someone is trying to manipulate my thoughts I prefer them to do it a little less transparently.
Lol. Like baby birds begging to be fed, the Althouse commenters stretch their necks upward, their bills open, and squawk: Manipulate me! Find me a nice, big fat lie to believe in! We need it!
ARM said...
"In fact, I said the causes were complex with boomer retirement being the largest single cause.
"In the future, when you call someone a liar, I would not undercut your slander by preceding it with a lie."
Hey, check this out, you lying hack.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/01/15/u-s-unemployment-retirees-are-not-the-labor-exodus-problem/
You want to blame the recession on Bush? Well, then you have to blame the shitty recovery on Obama.
I blame the Tea Party. Not that it matters. Their entire philosophy is to use the shorter shovel to fill in the bigger hole. Minimize the problem and then the tiny, petty, insufficient solution justifies itself.
Post a Comment