(09-30-2023 05:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 08:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Find me a Democrat with conservative fiscal policies and a strong foreign policy, and I would likely vote for him.

Such a Democrat would have a snowball’s chance in hell of being nominated.

That was exactly the platform of the revered patron saint of the Democratic Party, John F. Kennedy.

Present-day "progressives", who generally still like to make a show of revering Kennedy, really hate this particular fact. Pretty much the only thing that "progressives" care to know about him is that he had "vigah".

But I suppose we shouldn't be surprised; after all, if "progressives" actually understood history, they wouldn't be "progressives"!

In terms of 'strong foreign policy', are you sure about that designation?

Seems to me the deep seated 'not anything at all, zero zilch, nada' for Ukraine seems to be centered straight in the R party. More precisely within the strong MAGA portions of the R party.

I would hardly categorize the 'let Ukraine fend for itself' as a tenet of strong foreign policy.

(09-30-2023 07:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I would hardly categorize the 'let Ukraine fend for itself' asa tenet of strong foreign policy.

Couple of points.

One, JFK was clearly a tax-cutting Cold Warrior which, as George said, would make him anathema to modern progressives/leftists. JFK actually ran on a platform that criticized republicans for having too weak armed forces. JFK's objective was a "2-1/2 war" military, that could simulataneusly engage Russia, China, and a rogue nation/terror threat. The Cuban missile crisis was clearly an example of extremely aggressive foreign policy.

Two, I think strong foreign policy needs to be determined in accordance with what your objectives are. We are in Cold War II, like it or not. The #1 enemy is China and Russia is #2. Unfortunately, a lot of the senior career bureaucrats at State and Defense and CIA sill think in terms of Russia as enemy #1, and we are in serious danger of losing if we don't refocus. Our biggest problem is not Russia and Ukraine, it's China through its Belt and Road and String of Pearls initiatives gaining influence in the developing world, now extending to Europe and South America. We have spent the last 20 years fighting wars that we did not intend to win--and probably could not win--in the MidEast, while China has been outflanking us economically.

We won Cold War I in two steps--Truman bribed up an alliance to stop Siviet aggression, and 40 years later Reagan put sufficient pressure on the Russian economy to bring down the Evil Empire. I think we can win Cold War II with a similar strategy. China has done some very impressive things economically, but the Chinese economy has very much feet of clay. They export cheap consumer goods and use the resulting cash flow to fund make-work projects with no chance of economic success (the empty cities) and to buy foreign influence. Bribe up that alliance among the British Commonwealth (UK, Canada, Australia, India, Malaysia, Singapore), the Quad (Australia again, India again, Japan), and other countries threatened by China (Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines), and we have leverage to shut off China's exports to the west and its imports of oil. Without those things the Chinese economy craters. The objective of Belt and Road is to provide additional land-based lines of transportation, to avoid the sea threats, but you can't truck enough oil over the Himalayas to keep China's economy going.

So, to my mind, a strong policy is one that addresses today's number one enemy instead of yesterdays, and I think the preoccupation with Ukraine indicates that our "best minds" at State/Defense/CIA are not capable of making that transition. A basic problem is that those views caused us to engage in a strong anti-Russian foreign policy after the fall of the Iron Curtain, driving Russia ever closer to China, when a less hostile policy might have allowed us to triangulate Russia v China in very useful ways. One of my basic tenets for defense/foreign policy, learned in Vietnam a half century ago, is never fight a war that you don't intend to win. What does a win look like in Ukraine? I think that a negotiated peace with Ukraine remaining militarily neutral but with strong economic ties to Europe (perhaps EU membership but not NATO) is the best outcome--for Ukraine, for Russia, for Europe, and for the USA. Then focus on stopping China. How do we get there?

I don't think that ignoring China to focus on Iraq and Afghanistan as been a useful foreign policy for the last 20 years, and I don't think focusing on Ukraine to ignore China is useful now.

Tanq, this may be another iteration of our differences. You seem to have far more respect for, and trust in, the senior career bureaucrats running our security and defense and foreign policy establisments than I do.

(09-30-2023 07:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 05:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 08:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Find me a Democrat with conservative fiscal policies and a strong foreign policy, and I would likely vote for him.

Such a Democrat would have a snowball’s chance in hell of being nominated.

That was exactly the platform of the revered patron saint of the Democratic Party, John F. Kennedy.

Present-day "progressives", who generally still like to make a show of revering Kennedy, really hate this particular fact. Pretty much the only thing that "progressives" care to know about him is that he had "vigah".

But I suppose we shouldn't be surprised; after all, if "progressives" actually understood history, they wouldn't be "progressives"!

In terms of 'strong foreign policy', are you sure about that designation?

Seems to me the deep seated 'not anything at all, zero zilch, nada' for Ukraine seems to be centered straight in the R party. More precisely within the strong MAGA portions of the R party.

I would hardly categorize the 'let Ukraine fend for itself' as a tenet of strong foreign policy.

You have hit upon one of the few, perhaps the only, Biden policy I agree with. I know - shock and consternation must reign in certain circles - OO agree with the Dems on something? Is the world ending?

But I agree with supporting Ukraine against Russia.

In terms of strong foreign policy, for example, I would not be appeasing Iran with tons of money. Biden rolls over for the wrong people at the wrong time.

Which nations have been strengthened by Biden’s energy policies? All the oil producers, including Russia, Iran, and Venezuela.

Note: being in favor of the lesser evil is not an endorsement of the lesser evil, but rather a condemnation of the greater evil. If the choices are Vlad the Impaler and Adolph Hitler, a choice for Vlad does not mean you support impalement.

(09-30-2023 05:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 08:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Find me a Democrat with conservative fiscal policies and a strong foreign policy, and I would likely vote for him.

Such a Democrat would have a snowball’s chance in hell of being nominated.

That was exactly the platform of the revered patron saint of the Democratic Party, John F. Kennedy.

Present-day "progressives", who generally still like to make a show of revering Kennedy, really hate this particular fact. Pretty much the only thing that "progressives" care to know about him is that he had "vigah".

But I suppose we shouldn't be surprised; after all, if "progressives" actually understood history, they wouldn't be "progressives"!

Kennedy could not be nominated by the current Democrat Party.

(10-01-2023 01:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 07:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I would hardly categorize the 'let Ukraine fend for itself' asa tenet of strong foreign policy.

Couple of points.

One, JFK was clearly a tax-cutting Cold Warrior which, as George said, would make him anathema to modern progressives/leftists. JFK actually ran on a platform that criticized republicans for having too weak armed forces. JFK's objective was a "2-1/2 war" military, that could simulataneusly engage Russia, China, and a rogue nation/terror threat. The Cuban missile crisis was clearly an example of extremely aggressive foreign policy.

Two, I think strong foreign policy needs to be determined in accordance with what your objectives are. We are in Cold War II, like it or not. The #1 enemy is China and Russia is #2. Unfortunately, a lot of the senior career bureaucrats at State and Defense and CIA sill think in terms of Russia as enemy #1, and we are in serious danger of losing if we don't refocus. Our biggest problem is not Russia and Ukraine, it's China through its Belt and Road and String of Pearls initiatives gaining influence in the developing world, now extending to Europe and South America. We have spent the last 20 years fighting wars that we did not intend to win--and probably could not win--in the MidEast, while China has been outflanking us economically.

We won Cold War I in two steps--Truman bribed up an alliance to stop Siviet aggression, and 40 years later Reagan put sufficient pressure on the Russian economy to bring down the Evil Empire. I think we can win Cold War II with a similar strategy. China has done some very impressive things economically, but the Chinese economy has very much feet of clay. They export cheap consumer goods and use the resulting cash flow to fund make-work projects with no chance of economic success (the empty cities) and to buy foreign influence. Bribe up that alliance among the British Commonwealth (UK, Canada, Australia, India, Malaysia, Singapore), the Quad (Australia again, India again, Japan), and other countries threatened by China (Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines), and we have leverage to shut off China's exports to the west and its imports of oil. Without those things the Chinese economy craters. The objective of Belt and Road is to provide additional land-based lines of transportation, to avoid the sea threats, but you can't truck enough oil over the Himalayas to keep China's economy going.

So, to my mind, a strong policy is one that addresses today's number one enemy instead of yesterdays, and I think the preoccupation with Ukraine indicates that our "best minds" at State/Defense/CIA are not capable of making that transition. A basic problem is that those views caused us to engage in a strong anti-Russian foreign policy after the fall of the Iron Curtain, driving Russia ever closer to China, when a less hostile policy might have allowed us to triangulate Russia v China in very useful ways. One of my basic tenets for defense/foreign policy, learned in Vietnam a half century ago, is never fight a war that you don't intend to win. What does a win look like in Ukraine? I think that a negotiated peace with Ukraine remaining militarily neutral but with strong economic ties to Europe (perhaps EU membership but not NATO) is the best outcome--for Ukraine, for Russia, for Europe, and for the USA. Then focus on stopping China. How do we get there?

I don't think that ignoring China to focus on Iraq and Afghanistan as been a useful foreign policy for the last 20 years, and I don't think focusing on Ukraine to ignore China is useful now.

Tanq, this may be another iteration of our differences. You seem to have far more respect for, and trust in, the senior career bureaucrats running our security and defense and foreign policy establisments than I do.

I don't know the import of 90% of your post to the issue of backing Ukraine.

I would beg to differ in your assertion that one has to ignore China in order to back Ukraine. I don't think anyone, for that matter, who supports backing Ukraine requires it to be ghe sole focus.

I view support of Ukraine through a multitude of lenses.

1, a bulwark against naked aggression.
2. A means to stop Putins territorial grabs in its tracks
3. A means to diminish the ideals of Putin
4. A means to stop the above in a manner that doesn't implicate Art 5 of NATO.
5. A generational opportunity to deflate one of two aggressive authoritarian land grabbers, with solely economic and materiel support
6. A clear signal to the other authoritarian territory grabber that the West can act in a unified manner economically and potentially in active non combat support to address China's expansionist ambitions.
7. Russia is one of the top 2 top threats to Western-style governments, not necessarily #1 as I agree that China has surpassed it, but still one of the top 2. Again, see point #5 as to a generational opportunity to not just thwart and deflate one of th top 2, but a chance in the medium to long term to eliminate it. A stalemate in Ukraine with 100k casualties does no advantage to the long term advantage of a Putin-style government. And that can happen with a *zero* implication of US 'boots on the ground' and *zero* implication of that opportunity necessitated with an Art. 5 event. Sucks for Russia to be bled out, and it is terrible that Ukraine is the place to bear the brunt of the carnage and misery. Much better than than any expansion to the Baltics, Moldova, Poland -- which based on Russian press this week *is* the point that Putin is pursuing.

At the same time, I don't think your 'either / or' approach is very on point.

Much like the arguments I see elsewhere that equate Ukraine support *or* US domestic issues. I think the exclusive one or the other us simply a false predicate. Much as I view your 'China or Russia' view above.

And I view your comment that I am blindly following and trusting bureaucrats on that issue specious, and quite honestly fairly insulting. But that seems to be your 'go to' rationale with regard to differences of opinion between us these days. So be it.

(10-01-2023 09:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 07:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 05:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 08:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Find me a Democrat with conservative fiscal policies and a strong foreign policy, and I would likely vote for him.

Such a Democrat would have a snowball’s chance in hell of being nominated.

That was exactly the platform of the revered patron saint of the Democratic Party, John F. Kennedy.

Present-day "progressives", who generally still like to make a show of revering Kennedy, really hate this particular fact. Pretty much the only thing that "progressives" care to know about him is that he had "vigah".

But I suppose we shouldn't be surprised; after all, if "progressives" actually understood history, they wouldn't be "progressives"!

In terms of 'strong foreign policy', are you sure about that designation?

Seems to me the deep seated 'not anything at all, zero zilch, nada' for Ukraine seems to be centered straight in the R party. More precisely within the strong MAGA portions of the R party.

I would hardly categorize the 'let Ukraine fend for itself' as a tenet of strong foreign policy.

You have hit upon one of the few, perhaps the only, Biden policy I agree with. I know - shock and consternation must reign in certain circles - OO agree with the Dems on something? Is the world ending?

But I agree with supporting Ukraine against Russia.

In terms of strong foreign policy, for example, I would not be appeasing Iran with tons of money. Biden rolls over for the wrong people at the wrong time.

Which nations have been strengthened by Biden’s energy policies? All the oil producers, including Russia, Iran, and Venezuela.

Note: being in favor of the lesser evil is not an endorsement of the lesser evil, but rather a condemnation of the greater evil. If the choices are Vlad the Impaler and Adolph Hitler, a choice for Vlad does not mean you support impalement.

I agree on the impact of Bidens energy policy in the above.

I just hear many on the R side stating stuff about a 'strong foreign policy', when their non-support of Ukraine kind of cuts against that policy point.

Based on your comments above, I would surmise that you and I would agree in principle for a support of Ukraine, and also understand the dichotomy that the Rs gave created for themselves with that fairly incongruous position.

(10-01-2023 09:39 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 09:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 07:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 05:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 08:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Find me a Democrat with conservative fiscal policies and a strong foreign policy, and I would likely vote for him.

Such a Democrat would have a snowball’s chance in hell of being nominated.

That was exactly the platform of the revered patron saint of the Democratic Party, John F. Kennedy.

Present-day "progressives", who generally still like to make a show of revering Kennedy, really hate this particular fact. Pretty much the only thing that "progressives" care to know about him is that he had "vigah".

But I suppose we shouldn't be surprised; after all, if "progressives" actually understood history, they wouldn't be "progressives"!

In terms of 'strong foreign policy', are you sure about that designation?

Seems to me the deep seated 'not anything at all, zero zilch, nada' for Ukraine seems to be centered straight in the R party. More precisely within the strong MAGA portions of the R party.

I would hardly categorize the 'let Ukraine fend for itself' as a tenet of strong foreign policy.

You have hit upon one of the few, perhaps the only, Biden policy I agree with. I know - shock and consternation must reign in certain circles - OO agree with the Dems on something? Is the world ending?

But I agree with supporting Ukraine against Russia.

In terms of strong foreign policy, for example, I would not be appeasing Iran with tons of money. Biden rolls over for the wrong people at the wrong time.

Which nations have been strengthened by Biden’s energy policies? All the oil producers, including Russia, Iran, and Venezuela.

Note: being in favor of the lesser evil is not an endorsement of the lesser evil, but rather a condemnation of the greater evil. If the choices are Vlad the Impaler and Adolph Hitler, a choice for Vlad does not mean you support impalement.

I agree on the impact of Bidens energy policy in the above.

I just hear many on the R side stating stuff about a 'strong foreign policy', when their non-support of Ukraine kind of cuts against that policy point.

Based on your comments above, I would surmise that you and I would agree in principle for a support of Ukraine, and also understand the dichotomy that the Rs gave created for themselves with that fairly incongruous position.

No party is pure, and no party is right all the time.

Same for individual politicians.

As usual, I go my own way rather than look to party leaders to tell me what to think.

(10-01-2023 09:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 05:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 08:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Find me a Democrat with conservative fiscal policies and a strong foreign policy, and I would likely vote for him.

Such a Democrat would have a snowball’s chance in hell of being nominated.

That was exactly the platform of the revered patron saint of the Democratic Party, John F. Kennedy.

Present-day "progressives", who generally still like to make a show of revering Kennedy, really hate this particular fact. Pretty much the only thing that "progressives" care to know about him is that he had "vigah".

But I suppose we shouldn't be surprised; after all, if "progressives" actually understood history, they wouldn't be "progressives"!

Kennedy could not be nominated by the current Democrat Party.

And despite today’s Republican candidates giving verbal tongue-baths to the memory of Ronald Reagan, he would be unelectable in the GOP of 2023.

(10-01-2023 10:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 09:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 05:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 08:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Find me a Democrat with conservative fiscal policies and a strong foreign policy, and I would likely vote for him.

Such a Democrat would have a snowball’s chance in hell of being nominated.

That was exactly the platform of the revered patron saint of the Democratic Party, John F. Kennedy.

Present-day "progressives", who generally still like to make a show of revering Kennedy, really hate this particular fact. Pretty much the only thing that "progressives" care to know about him is that he had "vigah".

But I suppose we shouldn't be surprised; after all, if "progressives" actually understood history, they wouldn't be "progressives"!

Kennedy could not be nominated by the current Democrat Party.

And despite today’s Republican candidates giving verbal tongue-baths to the memory of Ronald Reagan, he would be unelectable in the GOP of 2023.

Why not? What would be the deal breakers?

(10-01-2023 10:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 10:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 09:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 05:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 08:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Find me a Democrat with conservative fiscal policies and a strong foreign policy, and I would likely vote for him.

Such a Democrat would have a snowball’s chance in hell of being nominated.

That was exactly the platform of the revered patron saint of the Democratic Party, John F. Kennedy.

Present-day "progressives", who generally still like to make a show of revering Kennedy, really hate this particular fact. Pretty much the only thing that "progressives" care to know about him is that he had "vigah".

But I suppose we shouldn't be surprised; after all, if "progressives" actually understood history, they wouldn't be "progressives"!

Kennedy could not be nominated by the current Democrat Party.

And despite today’s Republican candidates giving verbal tongue-baths to the memory of Ronald Reagan, he would be unelectable in the GOP of 2023.

Why not? What would be the deal breakers?

Plenty of reasons, but certainly his sympathy towards the plight of immigrants would not sit well with the 2023 Republican base.

(10-01-2023 10:39 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 10:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 10:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 09:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 05:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  That was exactly the platform of the revered patron saint of the Democratic Party, John F. Kennedy.

Present-day "progressives", who generally still like to make a show of revering Kennedy, really hate this particular fact. Pretty much the only thing that "progressives" care to know about him is that he had "vigah".

But I suppose we shouldn't be surprised; after all, if "progressives" actually understood history, they wouldn't be "progressives"!

Kennedy could not be nominated by the current Democrat Party.

And despite today’s Republican candidates giving verbal tongue-baths to the memory of Ronald Reagan, he would be unelectable in the GOP of 2023.

Why not? What would be the deal breakers?

Plenty of reasons, but certainly his sympathy towards the plight of immigrants would not sit well with the 2023 Republican base.

And undoubtedly Reagan would strongly back the position of aiding Ukraine to the detriment of a major antagonist to the democratic ideals of self-rule and sovereignty and a proponent of aggressive expansionist behavior towards its neighbors. Specifically, I think it unquestioned that Reagan would back the support of Ukraine --- which again would not sit well with the majority of the current Republican base.

(10-01-2023 10:39 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 10:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 10:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 09:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-30-2023 05:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  That was exactly the platform of the revered patron saint of the Democratic Party, John F. Kennedy.

Present-day "progressives", who generally still like to make a show of revering Kennedy, really hate this particular fact. Pretty much the only thing that "progressives" care to know about him is that he had "vigah".

But I suppose we shouldn't be surprised; after all, if "progressives" actually understood history, they wouldn't be "progressives"!

Kennedy could not be nominated by the current Democrat Party.

And despite today’s Republican candidates giving verbal tongue-baths to the memory of Ronald Reagan, he would be unelectable in the GOP of 2023.

Why not? What would be the deal breakers?

Plenty of reasons, but certainly his sympathy towards the plight of immigrants would not sit well with the 2023 Republican base.

Unfortunately, you fail to distinguish between attitudes toward legal immigrants and illegal immigrants.

I think most, if not all conservatives are in favor of legal immigration and legal immigrants.

The opposition to illegal immigration is falsely presented by the mainstream Left as opposition to all immigrants, often as xenophobic hatred of darker skins.

Not the case.

I wonder why the mainstream left refuses to differentiate between legal and illegal. They cannot even bring themselves to say “illegal”, substituting “undocumented”, as though it was just an oversight.

One of my cousins is married to a legal immigrant from Mexico. Another is married to a legal immigrant from England.

I may not be representative of the entire Republican universe, but I think I am much closer to that than to the stereotype of hating immigrants. I don’t hate immigrants. I don’t even hate illegal immigrants, but I hate that we ignore our own laws. I think wanting our laws to be enforced is not hateful.

(10-01-2023 11:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 10:39 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 10:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 10:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 09:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kennedy could not be nominated by the current Democrat Party.

And despite today’s Republican candidates giving verbal tongue-baths to the memory of Ronald Reagan, he would be unelectable in the GOP of 2023.

Why not? What would be the deal breakers?

Plenty of reasons, but certainly his sympathy towards the plight of immigrants would not sit well with the 2023 Republican base.

Unfortunately, you fail to distinguish between attitudes toward legal immigrants and illegal immigrants.

I think most, if not all conservatives are in favor of legal immigration and legal immigrants.

The opposition to illegal immigration is falsely presented by the mainstream Left as opposition to all immigrants, often as xenophobic hatred of darker skins.

Not the case.

I wonder why the mainstream left refuses to differentiate between legal and illegal. They cannot even bring themselves to say “illegal”, substituting “undocumented”, as though it was just an oversight.

One of my cousins is married to a legal immigrant from Mexico. Another is married to a legal immigrant from England.

I may not be representative of the entire Republican universe, but I think I am much closer to that than to the stereotype of hating immigrants. I don’t hate immigrants. I don’t even hate illegal immigrants, but I hate that we ignore our own laws. I think wanting our laws to be enforced is not hateful.

I also want out laws to be enforced and I believe that we need to remake the system to allow a smoother, quicker process for legal immigration. I don't want a borderless country.

But to be clear, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants like Reagan did in the 80's would have caused the 2023 GOP base to lose their f***ing minds.

(10-01-2023 11:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 11:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 10:39 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 10:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 10:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  And despite today’s Republican candidates giving verbal tongue-baths to the memory of Ronald Reagan, he would be unelectable in the GOP of 2023.

Why not? What would be the deal breakers?

Plenty of reasons, but certainly his sympathy towards the plight of immigrants would not sit well with the 2023 Republican base.

Unfortunately, you fail to distinguish between attitudes toward legal immigrants and illegal immigrants.

I think most, if not all conservatives are in favor of legal immigration and legal immigrants.

The opposition to illegal immigration is falsely presented by the mainstream Left as opposition to all immigrants, often as xenophobic hatred of darker skins.

Not the case.

I wonder why the mainstream left refuses to differentiate between legal and illegal. They cannot even bring themselves to say “illegal”, substituting “undocumented”, as though it was just an oversight.

One of my cousins is married to a legal immigrant from Mexico. Another is married to a legal immigrant from England.

I may not be representative of the entire Republican universe, but I think I am much closer to that than to the stereotype of hating immigrants. I don’t hate immigrants. I don’t even hate illegal immigrants, but I hate that we ignore our own laws. I think wanting our laws to be enforced is not hateful.

I also want out laws to be enforced and I believe that we need to remake the system to allow a smoother, quicker process for legal immigration. I don't want a borderless country.

But to be clear, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants like Reagan did in the 80's would have caused the 2023 GOP base to lose their f***ing minds.

True. The de facto amnesty of the Democrats is having exactly that effect.

Reagan, IIRC, was facing a one time event. Biden is facing an ongoing flood - and ignoring it.


I doubt Reagan 2023 would be in favor of what we have now.

(10-01-2023 12:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 11:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 11:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 10:39 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 10:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why not? What would be the deal breakers?

Plenty of reasons, but certainly his sympathy towards the plight of immigrants would not sit well with the 2023 Republican base.

Unfortunately, you fail to distinguish between attitudes toward legal immigrants and illegal immigrants.

I think most, if not all conservatives are in favor of legal immigration and legal immigrants.

The opposition to illegal immigration is falsely presented by the mainstream Left as opposition to all immigrants, often as xenophobic hatred of darker skins.

Not the case.

I wonder why the mainstream left refuses to differentiate between legal and illegal. They cannot even bring themselves to say “illegal”, substituting “undocumented”, as though it was just an oversight.

One of my cousins is married to a legal immigrant from Mexico. Another is married to a legal immigrant from England.

I may not be representative of the entire Republican universe, but I think I am much closer to that than to the stereotype of hating immigrants. I don’t hate immigrants. I don’t even hate illegal immigrants, but I hate that we ignore our own laws. I think wanting our laws to be enforced is not hateful.

I also want out laws to be enforced and I believe that we need to remake the system to allow a smoother, quicker process for legal immigration. I don't want a borderless country.

But to be clear, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants like Reagan did in the 80's would have caused the 2023 GOP base to lose their f***ing minds.

True. The de facto amnesty of the Democrats is having exactly that effect.

Reagan, IIRC, was facing a one time event. Biden is facing an ongoing flood - and ignoring it.


I doubt Reagan 2023 would be in favor of what we have now.

I also am not in favor of the situation that we have today.

I’m not sure what you mean by one time event. Regardles, I’m pretty confident that Reagan would be unelectable today.

(10-01-2023 12:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Reagan, IIRC, was facing a one time event. Biden is facing an ongoing flood - and ignoring it.
I doubt Reagan 2023 would be in favor of what we have now.

What gets conveniently ignored by democrats and their henchmen in the MSM. Reagan was also acting as part of a compromise with Tip O'Neill. In exchange for granting amnesty, democrats who controlled congress agreed to pass comprehensive immigration policy--probably a points-based approach like most of Europe and Canada.

The problem was that democrats let Reagan go first and then reneged on their part of the deal. If Reagan had only said, "You go first," we would probably be in a much better place today.

That democrat perfidy has been a source of hard feelings on this issue for 40 years.

(10-01-2023 12:41 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I’m not sure what you mean by one time event.

Wasn't that due to the Mariel boatlift?

The Mariel boatlift (Spanish: éxodo del Mariel) was a mass emigration of Cubans who traveled from Cuba's Mariel Harbor to the United States between April 15 and October 31, 1980. The term "Marielito" (plural "Marielitos") is used to refer to these refugees in both Spanish and English. While the exodus was triggered by a sharp downturn in the Cuban economy, it followed on the heels of generations of Cubans who had immigrated to the United States in the preceding decades.

After 10,000 Cubans tried to gain asylum by taking refuge on the grounds of the Peruvian embassy, the Cuban government announced that anyone who wanted to leave could do so. The ensuing mass migration was organized by Cuban Americans, with the agreement of Cuban President Fidel Castro. The arrival of the refugees in the United States created political problems for U.S. President Jimmy Carter. The Carter administration struggled to develop a consistent response to the immigrants.

The Mariel boatlift was ended by mutual agreement between the two governments in late October 1980. By then, as many as 125,266 Cubans had reached Florida.

In 1984, the Mariel refugees from Cuba received permanent legal status under a revision to the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966.

A problem inherited from Carter, handled by Reagan

here's an example of the kind of policy that I don't want our next Admistration to pursue.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realesta...AA1f6nUO|1

Here's another:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/...a87a&ei=64

(10-01-2023 10:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  here's an example of the kind of policy that I don't want our next Admistration to pursue.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realesta...AA1f6nUO|1

Here's another:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/...a87a&ei=64

Sign me up for government support for constructing more affordable housing. Housing is short and providing incentives that make affordable housing economically feasible, if done well, sounds like a great policy to me. I’ve seen, first hand, the real good that well-organized government housing incentives can do in encouraging development when it would previously not be economically feasible.

(10-02-2023 08:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-01-2023 10:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  here's an example of the kind of policy that I don't want our next Admistration to pursue.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realesta...AA1f6nUO|1

Here's another:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/...a87a&ei=64

Sign me up for government support for constructing more affordable housing. Housing is short and providing incentives that make affordable housing economically feasible, if done well, sounds like a great policy to me. I’ve seen, first hand, the real good that well-organized government housing incentives can do in encouraging development when it would previously not be economically feasible.

Read the headline carefully:

Biden's top economist says the key to ending the housing crisis is giving cities and developers monetary incentives to build more affordable homes

See the word "giving"? See the words "monetary incentives"? Where is this money we are giving away coming from? Hint: it starts with "tax-" and ends with "-payers". It either adds to the deficit or results in higher taxes. And to the extent the giveaway is unfunded, it is inflationary.

Not to mention it is a "tax break for the rich" (developers), something the left says it is against.

This is a good example of what I have been saying about Democrats: they don't look past the first domino. All that you or any other Blue sees is lower housing prices, everybody wins, the world is better, yay. That is the first domino, that is the piece of candy offered. But that is not the final result.

Would housing become more affordable if we lowered taxes on citizens? Would housing be more affordable if inflation were low and steady, like, say, 2020?