29 thoughts on “A Pathway To Codswallop”

  1. Bernie Sanders is the only one correct on the immigration issue???

    “You’re doing away with the concept of nation.”

    I’ll clean up the mess. My head just exploded.

    1. Bernie is wrong. The U.S. was a nation when it had open borders. Argentina has open borders now, and remains a nation.

      1. Enh, with open borders and no requirement to be a citizen to vote, we really wouldn’t have a country under the Democrat plan.

        Which is the point isn’t it? Tear down the system and replace it with something*

        *socialism

      2. We also didn’t have a plethora of welfare programs to hand out to new immigrants.

        Your analogy is not just flawed, but mendacious.

  2. Sigh. The Stupid Party in full swing. We could take the presidency, keep the House and Senate, and all we need to do is focus on issues where most of the country agrees. Then, after we have the ability to actually get things done, we could do the things where most of the country agrees. Then, after we’ve done them, we could begin to work out what to do about those issues where there is a lot of disagreement, and try to find solutions to them as well.
    We could do that.

    Or, we can let Donald Trump, Mark Steyn, and a lot of otherwise sensible people pull us into a discussion of immigration, which is an issue where there is a lot of disagreement, and thereby make it far more likely that someone will become president who will not do any of the things where most of the country agrees.
    Most of the candidates have this very sensible set of priorities, but that makes them squishy, so let’s attack them.
    Thanks.

      1. I think that other polls show it’s more complicated than that. The reason most politicians are avoiding this issue is that they don’t see it as a winner.
        I happen to support strong border control. I even think that probably most Americans would support some kind of bill to make it work. I do not think that someone will get elected on that basis, and most Republican politicians agree with me. That doesn’t make them squishes, it makes them pragmatic, and interested in doing stuff that works. It may well be that such a bill could be successful later, if carefully crafted to attract bipartisan support.

        1. I think that other polls show it’s more complicated than that.

          Of course they do. That’s what they were created for. Without exception, you’ll find the questions and procedures indicate that clearly.

          I happen to support strong border control

          Thanks for providing a perfect example. The issue isn’t “border control”. It’s imigration. Two seperate things that wording of questions on polls can muddy, creating the illusion of “complication”. That’s all it is, illusion.

          1. “Of course they do. That’s what they were created for.” ‘Cause no one could actually disagree with you? I get enough of that from liberals.
            ‘The issue isn’t “border control”. It’s immigration. Two seperate things…’ Sigh again. A strong majority of Americans favor border control, just like me. A strong majority do not have a clear opinion on what to do with the illegal immigrants who are already here, regardless of some poll which is your favorite because you like what it says. A strong majority do not have a clear opinion on how legal immigration should be handled, regardless etc.
            I’m tired of fighting w people who don’t care what polls actually say. Deal with it: just like with social conservatives’ most favorite issues, – and just like Obamacare for liberals – these are not political winners, no matter how much you care about them, and no matter the percentage of blogs you like care about them. The proof is the way the real politicians deal with them; they know their audiences better than you do.

          2. The proof is the way the real politicians deal with them – they know their audiences better than you do.

            Actually the “proof” is the reaction to Donald Trump, both from the public and from your “real” politicians. Who is it exactly who “knows their audience”?? LOL. And in your mind what exactly does that audience consist of? Chamber of commerce hacks?

            A strong majority do not have a clear opinion on how legal immigration should be handled, regardless etc.

            You should retire to your normal echo chamber, wherever that is. The majority is there for anyone who wants to see it. As I said, ANY poll with clear questions, such as “Do you favor higher or lower levels of imigration”, shows clear and significant minorities choosing the former, trending lower.

          3. “Actually the “proof” is the reaction to Donald Trump, both from the public” Exactly. The public dislikes him, thinks he’s a clown. He is disliked by most Americans, including most Republicans. However, there is a minority that really really likes him, and cheers loudly, and thinks that that means that he’s a good candidate. If getting 20% of people to vote for you makes you a good candidate, then yes.
            Very strongly pro-life people have exactly the same argument. They have a very powerful group of very motivated people, _and_ most Americans basically agree with them on many parts of the abortion issue – see your immigration polls. And they are a tremendous loser in American politics, because not enough Americans think it is high enough on their list, and don’t want it to be very high on the list.
            Deal with reality, or lose and bring the rest of us down with you.

          4. FiveThirtyEight??! Good lord, can’t believe you actually went there.

            And they are a tremendous loser in American politics, because not enough Americans think it is high enough on their list, and don’t want it to be very high on the list.

            And it ISN’T high on the list. Unlike immigration, which usually comes in at number 3. And it is trending higher.

    1. @ MikeR,

      Yeah, the stupid party is at it again, all right; far better that the candidates stick to non-controversial, consensus-type issues, such as focusing their campaign on Cecil the Lion. That’ll work just oh so well.

      By the metric you suggest, we need to tell candidates who have policy positions on abortion, the economy, the environment, gay marriage, global warming, foreign policy, the deficit, taxes, crime, etc, etc, to shut up about them, because there’s a lot of disagreement on those issues.

      And what, exactly, are the issues (other than Cecil the Lion, apparently) where most of the country agrees?

      How about candidates just set out a clear policy position on the issues, and accept that controversy is part and parcel of politics?

      Ignoring issues, especially ones that rank in the top 3 in most voter surveys (Economy, foreign policy, immigration) is a sure-fire way to come across as a pandering flip-flopper at best, and thereby snatch defeat from the looming jaws of victory.

      1. “And what, exactly, are the issues (other than Cecil the Lion, apparently) where most of the country agrees?” It’s not that hard. Most Americans think, for instance, that ACA is a really bad idea, and will make American health care worse. Republicans have done very well opposing it, and Democrats are being very quiet about the fact that they supported it.
        Most Americans think that the United States federal government (along with many state governments) have been taken over by rent-seekers and powerful crony capitalists. This was the basis of the Tea Party. Most Americans agree that a large chunk of federal regulations and regulators are out of control and should be drastically pruned. Most Americans agree that the federal budget needs to be balanced, or at least there should be a plan to balance it.
        It’s not that hard. And if it is that hard, probably the Republican Party is doomed, anyhow. But it isn’t. Most Americans agree that these things badly need doing and will vote for someone who wants to do them. Unless, of course, you insist on doing something else too that they disagree with.

    2. The problem is that with certain topics, if the candidate doesn’t agree 200% with a person’s views, that candidate is some sort of “traitor.”

      I prefer to follow the lead of Saint Reagan: someone who agrees with me 80% of the time is mostly an ally, not a 20% enemy.

      By the way, Mr. Stein, former Governer didn’t call anyone a racist. That’s your own idiotic interpretation, which (again) goes back to slandering anyone who doesn’t agree with you completely. What Mr. Stein doesn’t address that only a few years ago Trump was an open-borders advocate who called out the GOP as “heartless” himself.

      The hard core have gotten to a place where they will mindlessly attack those who disagree with them 20% instead of saying “hey, I can work with them on most of this.” They have forgotten that compromise is the essence of good politics

      I’ll take 80% success over 100% failure because too many people refused to budge an inch.

  3. I favor open borders, but I would say you need to be citizen for 10 year [at least] before you can vote.
    [I am not of opinion that everyone *must* be able to vote. Not generally keen on idea of government deciding who should be able to vote, but if only been in the country for less than 10 years it’s similar to requirement like you must be 18 to vote.]
    Also you don’t get welfare benefits.
    The only welfare benefit you get, is being deported.
    So if immigrant and need public assistance, the only assistance you get, is returning you to your country of origin. And if newly arrived and not here long enough to vote, and involved in criminal activity, you also deported.
    Once you have been deported- then can’t come back.
    No open border for people once deported. And of course one need to be in the country, legally for 10 years to be able to vote.
    Immigrants until they become citizens should be sort of like being on parole from prison- so, something they have provide evident they are gainful employed.

    I think free trade and open borders are similar issue.
    The problem with open borders is the government is incompetent.

    So if we go to the Moon… we should able to make US immigration department less stupid.

    1. The issue I see with immigration is less how many and more which ones. Those disposed to sneak across the border in defiance of the law are not those we should be welcoming. Those with skills and work ethic, and willingness to follow legal process, are those I’m most inclined to welcome.

      As for voting, you can be a legal resident of a nation without being a citizen. Many rights of citizenship that don’t relate to control over our government may be extended. I favor an extended period of legal residence before naturalization and citizenship. And restrict public assistance to citizens.

    2. I’ll agree on open borders when you agree anyone can wander into your house and help themselves to whatever they want.

      1. If people want to come here and work for an honest living, why should we want to stop them? It isn’t as if there’s only a fixed amount of work or wealth to go around.

        1. Nice try Jimmy. Your history here has demonstrated conclusively that “there’s a fixed amount of work and wealth to go around” is econ 101 for you and your ilk.

          How exactly does one go about determining that a persons expressed desire to “work for an honest living” is genuine? Would the Tsarnaev’s count? Would Juan Lopez-Sanchez’s expression of a desire to wash cars be relevant? Should it be appropriate to ask questions about the number and ages of family members an individual intends to invite subsequent to status determination? Should the US government be required to formally define what the word “refugee” means? Should the opinions of American’s be taken into account when “Diversity Lottery” is explained to them in straight-forward and accurate terms?

          1. How exactly does one go about determining that a persons expressed desire to “work for an honest living” is genuine?

            That’s a bit like asking how to determine whether a new technology or business will be good for the country or not. You can’t do so ahead of time with 100% reliability. So you either adopt the precautionary principle, and ban everything, or you allow new ideas/businesses/immigrants as long as they don’t raise obvious red flags, and then monitor them to see how it goes. To date even undocumented immigrants have had a lower crime rate than natives; the overwhelming majority have come here to “work for an honest living”. That’s a strong reason to believe that more immigration would work to our benefit.

          2. That’s a bit like asking how to determine whether a new technology or business will be good for the country or not.

            No it’s not event a “bit” like it. If it’s illegal then it’s illegal. As in “against the law”. If it’s not illegal then it’s none of the governments business determining whether or not it’s good for the country.

            To date even undocumented immigrants have had a lower crime rate than natives

            Bolded to illustrate the absurd idiocy of your statement.

          3. That’s a bit like asking how to determine whether a new technology or business will be good for the country or not.

            Curt’s response is right on. I just get a kick out of Jim’s hypocrisy in making is argument. The Obama Administration, particularly the EPA, regularly attempts to determine which technology or business will be good for the country or not, and in this regard muddles with the market regularly. Yet Jim wants more of that federal control over business and markets.

            While immigration could be part of a free market, the concern is undermining the market with criminal elements. In terms of what is criminal or not, this has been a function of all governments at all levels since their creation. The thing about criminal law, is it is good law when it applies equally well across various to all situations. It becomes corrupt law, such as Democrat’s Jim Crow Laws, when it is utilized to skew favor to some over others.

Comments are closed.