• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

You argued MAGA can’t be fascist without militarization. A parade was one on a list of examples for militarization, it was not held up as proof of fascism. But hey you keep fighting those strawmen.

You clearly identify with the MAGA, and it can be tough to acknowledge fault within the in-group. Social identity has been linked to normalization and acceptance of deviant behaviour by groups of otherwise normal people.

There is some horrible things happening in the US and people are talking about that. You want to change the conversation and quibble about whether MAGA (and Nazis too for that matter) are fascist enough to be called fascist. Does it really matter when they are building concentration camps? wielding the power of the state against legal, media, and educational organizations with opposing views? Seeking paths to revoke citizenship of undesirables? Acting unrestrained of the constitution or checks & balances? Do you really think the other side did something similar enough so that this is okay?

This is one helluva leap.

What amount of illegal migration is just fine in your view? It has been millions. That is drastic, and drastic measures are required to correct it. A country without a border is no country at all. The administration that permitted this was harming the country. The administration that is stopping it is saving the country.
 
This is one helluva leap.

What amount of illegal migration is just fine in your view? It has been millions. That is drastic, and drastic measures are required to correct it. A country without a border is no country at all. The administration that permitted this was harming the country. The administration that is stopping it is saving the country.
Oh fatherland, fatherland show us the sign
Your children have waited to see
The morning will come when the world is mine
Tomorrow belongs to me
 
This is one helluva leap.

What amount of illegal migration is just fine in your view? It has been millions. That is drastic, and drastic measures are required to correct it. A country without a border is no country at all. The administration that permitted this was harming the country. The administration that is stopping it is saving the country.
The response that Google AI gave me to the question of , "What time period has had the highest illegal immigration to America", was this - 1990-2007.

"The period between 1990 and 2007 saw the highest levels of illegal immigration to the United States. The unauthorized immigrant population in the U.S. rose rapidly during this time, peaking at an estimated 12.2 million in 2007. While the population has since declined, it's still a significant concern."
So that would cover off Bush the Elder, Clinton and Bush the Younger - 2 Republicans and a Democratic.
Again, coming from Google AI:
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
  • 1990-2007:
    This period saw a significant increase in the number of unauthorized immigrants, driven by factors like economic opportunities in the U.S. and instability in Mexico and other countries.
  • 2007:
    The unauthorized immigrant population reached its peak of 12.2 million in 2007.
  • 2007-2017:
    The population declined somewhat after 2007, but remained high at an estimated 10.5 million in 2017.

    Post-2017:
    The number of unauthorized immigrants has stabilized at around 10.5 to 11 million.

    So, according the above, the numbers having been slowly trending downwards over the last 20yrs.







 
The irony is that things like USAID, and you know, trade deals that improve individual economical outcomes in other countries do a lot to stem immigration.

Removing those things and pulling back for “reasons” Will likely increase migration (illegal or not).
 
A lot of people argued the same things in 1933 when Dachau was opened. Extreme times don’t merit suspending human rights.

Oh fatherland, fatherland show us the sign
Your children have waited to see
The morning will come when the world is mine
Tomorrow belongs to me

A country has the right to prevent crime. The US amongst almost every other country in the world considers illegal entry a crime. You both are leaping to ridiculous and ignorant conclusions.
 
A country has the right to prevent crime. The US amongst almost every other country in the world considers illegal entry a crime. You both are leaping to ridiculous and ignorant conclusions.
How many US citizens or US companies have been charged with hiring illegals in the US to perform services/jobs since Trump has started his cracked down on illegals in the US under his final term in office?

I'd be interested in reading those stats over the last 6 months.
 
Though related, it is a separate issue to the need to secure one's border.

Victor Davis Hansen has several recent clips on this topic and by and large #47's efforts have significantly improved the southern border situation. There is indeed a balancing act (deportation vs voluntary departure, green card vs not allowed to return) and this administration seems to have found a better alternative to priors (permitting mass illegal migration with hints of amnesty).
 
Though related, it is a separate issue to the need to secure one's border.

Victor Davis Hansen has several recent clips on this topic and by and large #47's efforts have significantly improved the southern border situation. There is indeed a balancing act (deportation vs voluntary departure, green card vs not allowed to return) and this administration seems to have found a better alternative to priors (permitting mass illegal migration with hints of amnesty).
I would argue that its THE central issue to secure one's border.

IF a country's own citizens are fully aware that their OWN ACTIONS of willingly employing an illegal immigrant can in fact result in their OWN arrest, conviction, fine and imprisonment then guess what? They WON'T willingly hire illegal immigrants and if this occurs, then the constant flood of modern day indentured servants, AKA illegal immigrants would NOT be crossing into the to US in the numbers that they are. They come BECAUSE the vast vast majority can find work/shelter and begin to have a future because US citizens/corporations will actively hire them
 
I suspect the lobbyists for the aquiculture and construction industry, were instrumental in keeping the flood of illegals going. They benefitted greatly as it gave them excess power over their workers. Now they are going to have to hire legals and report incomes, pay benefits, taxes. As I said before, an quick, efficient guest worker program will also take a lot of need for people to go the illegal route. Have it so that someone who does 3 or so guest worker tours, with no problems can apply to immigration with an improved chance to get in. Also an amnesty program.
 
I suspect the lobbyists for the aquiculture and construction industry, were instrumental in keeping the flood of illegals going. They benefitted greatly as it gave them excess power over their workers. Now they are going to have to hire legals and report incomes, pay benefits, taxes. As I said before, an quick, efficient guest worker program will also take a lot of need for people to go the illegal route. Have it so that someone who does 3 or so guest worker tours, with no problems can apply to immigration with an improved chance to get in. Also an amnesty program.
Because the alternative is 8$/a head of lettuce to hire an 'American' in picking that lettuce, lol and its NOT going to happen.

I've talked about the ongoing situation in Windsor (usually the highest unemployment in Canada) and the fact the 30km to the south in Harrow/Kingsville/Leamington there are 5,000 Mexican/Jamaican legal workers on 12 month work visas earning minimum wage (or above), with full health care coverage, paying into CPP working while we the taxpayer cover the costs of those unemployed in Windsor......
 
I would argue that its THE central issue to secure one's border.

IF a country's own citizens are fully aware that their OWN ACTIONS of willingly employing an illegal immigrant can in fact result in their OWN arrest, conviction, fine and imprisonment then guess what? They WON'T willingly hire illegal immigrants and if this occurs, then the constant flood of modern day indentured servants, AKA illegal immigrants would NOT be crossing into the to US in the numbers that they are. They come BECAUSE the vast vast majority can find work/shelter and begin to have a future because US citizens/corporations will actively hire them

It seems to me we both agree that border security is important, not only for national security but all the down stream impacts some of which you mention. Its just that you don't like how orange man went about it. I'm arguing he is getting results the priors did not.
 
It seems to me we both agree that border security is important, not only for national security but all the down stream impacts some of which you mention. Its just that you don't like how orange man went about it. I'm arguing he is getting results the priors did not.
Overall agreement but to truly address the issue one needs to remove the need for these individuals to want to go the the US in the first place.
 
You argued MAGA can’t be fascist without militarization. A parade was one on a list of examples for militarization, it was not held up as proof of fascism. But hey you keep fighting those strawmen.
The parade is held up as a facet of militarism, militarism is held up as a facet of fascism. Some people keep pointing to single events - some substantially and rightly alarming, and some frivolous - and fitting those to their cases for fascism. But most single events - like the parade - can be fitted to other cases; in this case, also populism, or even merely Trump's ego. Those willing to accept thin evidence in one case should not demand thorough evidence for another.

This echoes a point I have tried to make before. If we enumerated all possible characteristics of ideologies and all ideologies of interest and then mapped the former to the latter, there would be overlap: characteristics shared among ideologies. Oddball inconsistent events are not useful indicators, and a correct diagnosis requires all criteria be met. In particular, an authoritarian streak (and thus characteristics of authoritarianism) runs through most top-down ideologies and is to be expected in the people who seek high positions in those places.

Furthermore, people are always seizing on militating evidence and ignoring mitigating evidence. The administration basically ignored the "No Kings" protests. Real kings and tyrants don't tolerate that kind of open dissent. The administration will do as all administrations do and nominate judges and justices fitting particular models when nomination opportunities arise, but there is no serious indication that it is about to remove and replace the multitudes handing the administration setbacks and defeats in the courts. If the administration fires and replaces a senior military official, it will be for plausible cause - opponents will find reasons to disagree, but proponents will find reasons to agree - and not to wholesale replace the leadership with compliant GOFOs. The administration is going after media that the administration believes have presented information deceitfully, but it is not going after everyone who is a critic - even a severe critic; moreover, this is no different than the people in opposition who have their own ideas about what is malinformation and what should be done about it.
You clearly identify with the MAGA, and it can be tough to acknowledge fault within the in-group. Social identity has been linked to normalization and acceptance of deviant behaviour by groups of otherwise normal people.
Armchair psychoanalysis over the internet is exceptionally rude behaviour. I can't identify with something unless you provide your definition. "MAGA" is one of those "I know it when I see it" things that people throw around, and I can't read minds. I lean libertarian in my ideals and classically liberal in the principles of governance I favour and conservative in my politics and I have no particular like or dislike of Trump. The administration is usefully resetting overreach by prior administrations, and applying pressures that have motivated Canada and other countries and many institutions and agencies and people to shake off over-reliance on the US. I don't suffer the collective whine of the fools who object to things done by this administration that were not equally resisted when done by prior administrations. I am scornful of the multitude of occasions on which people supposedly against the erosion of norms and decency take to eroding norms and decency to alleviate their frustration and policy differences. I have contempt for those trying to paint a picture of eroding democracy in the US when I compare it to our own governing structure and the respective numbers of positions and questions that are routinely put before voters.
There is some horrible things happening in the US and people are talking about that.
Agreed.
You want to change the conversation and quibble about whether MAGA (and Nazis too for that matter) are fascist enough to be called fascist.
Absolutely. Claiming the administration is fascist is a precursor to extreme opposition suitable to opposing fascism, or to encouraging others to so believe and act. What is allowable if you are really fighting Hitler, or even merely Mussolini?
Does it really matter when they are building concentration camps? wielding the power of the state against legal, media, and educational organizations with opposing views? Seeking paths to revoke citizenship of undesirables? Acting unrestrained of the constitution or checks & balances?
The point I usually make is that what matters is whether it was done before. It is unreasonable to bitch when the other "team" applies in other ways the powers and capabilities that were convenient at one time for one's own "team". A detention camp or facility is a detention camp or facility. Facilitating large amounts of law-breaking creates the reasonable excuse for large amounts of law-enforcing. Exporting prisoners in one context opens the door to doing it in another. Following through on threats to find some ways to prosecute people, even if there is nothing in hand when the threat is made, invites retaliation. Creating invasive new powers for a particular envisioned purpose does not limit them from being applied otherwise. Acting unrestrained of the constitution etc invites more of the same.

As a practical political matter: if one party has repeatedly secured political advantage by bad behaviour and shows no sign of changing in the face of passive dismay, then tit-for-tat is fair until the first party exhibits evidence of genuine reform.
Do you really think the other side did something similar enough so that this is okay?
In most cases, yes. Their noses need to be rubbed in it until they really do follow through on their rhetoric - they're better than Trump, they don't go low, they want to preserve democratic norms and institutions, they themselves cut back some of the intrusive illiberal things they did etc, etc.
 
The irony is that things like USAID, and you know, trade deals that improve individual economical outcomes in other countries do a lot to stem immigration.

Removing those things and pulling back for “reasons” Will likely increase migration (illegal or not).
It won't much increase migration into the US as long as the administration is sending strong enforcement signals. Any migrations will be other countries' problems.

Given the claimed disruptions (trade, aid, military, etc), obviously the world has become over-reliant on the US, and thus over-vulnerable. I will stipulate that right now, people are on net worse off. This need not and most likely will not be the final outcome, as other countries take up the involvements they have for decades avoided. If more countries participate in shared aid funding and program delivery, aid programs will be more resilient and stable. NATO will become more secure as other members take up greater shares of the burden, and more capable of extra-NATO interventions. And so on.
 
Because the alternative is 8$/a head of lettuce to hire an 'American' in picking that lettuce, lol and its NOT going to happen.

I've talked about the ongoing situation in Windsor (usually the highest unemployment in Canada) and the fact the 30km to the south in Harrow/Kingsville/Leamington there are 5,000 Mexican/Jamaican legal workers on 12 month work visas earning minimum wage (or above), with full health care coverage, paying into CPP working while we the taxpayer cover the costs of those unemployed in Windsor......
There are three obvious choices.

1. Status quo, which preserves underclasses of people working in poor conditions for lower compensation under threat of deportation or other limitations.
2. Rigorous immigration enforcement.
3. Permissive legal immigration.

#1 should not be tolerated as a matter of liberal principle and ordinary humanity.
 
There are three obvious choices.

1. Status quo, which preserves underclasses of people working in poor conditions for lower compensation under threat of deportation or other limitations.
2. Rigorous immigration enforcement.
3. Permissive legal immigration.

#1 should not be tolerated as a matter of liberal principle and ordinary humanity.
For #2, why do people always jump to the conclusion that stopping/enforcing immigration rules never translates to nailing the US citizens/corporations who actively benefit from using illegal immigrants? The approach MUST be two-fold - the imprisonment AND heavy punitive fines against BOTH US individuals and US corporations who use illegal immigrants AND the enforcing border controls to flow the entry into the US.

Once the jobs dry up, the flow of net new illegal workers will dry up as well.
 
For #2, why do people always jump to the conclusion that stopping/enforcing immigration rules never translates to nailing the US citizens/corporations who actively benefit from using illegal immigrants? The approach MUST be two-fold - the imprisonment AND heavy punitive fines against BOTH US individuals and US corporations who use illegal immigrants AND the enforcing border controls to flow the entry into the US.

Once the jobs dry up, the flow of net new illegal workers will dry up as well.
It is at least occasionally two-fold. Articles about employers being pursued for employing illegals do pop up. I don't know the numbers, which are probably well short of what you would consider reasonable.

Going hard after the demand side will mean taking down some important (politically-connected) people, so it is unlikely. That leaves the supply side. The people who won't go after the demand side (because they are involved, or because they are defending acquaintances and cronies who are involved) are to be ignored when they try to hinder enforcement on the supply side; they should not be allowed to protect their miserable interests.

[Add: vigorous demand-side enforcement might create a humanitarian crisis if successful - large numbers of people suddenly without incomes, needing either public assistance or transport to countries of origin.]
 
It is at least occasionally two-fold. Articles about employers being pursued for employing illegals do pop up. I don't know the numbers, which are probably well short of what you would consider reasonable.

Going hard after the demand side will mean taking down some important (politically-connected) people, so it is unlikely. That leaves the supply side. The people who won't go after the demand side (because they are involved, or because they are defending acquaintances and cronies who are involved) are to be ignored when they try to hinder enforcement on the supply side; they should not be allowed to protect their miserable interests.

[Add: vigorous demand-side enforcement might create a humanitarian crisis if successful - large numbers of people suddenly without incomes, needing either public assistance or transport to countries of origin.]
Can't suck and blow at the same time.

Everyone lays the blame at the feet of the illegals - everyone - while the blame lays with the US Citizens and Corporations who create the environment that employs these people. It treats them as expendables, use them up and then discard them when they have no more value and then bring in the next crop of warm bodies. Its disgusting.

I am a pro-business individual; I want low corporate taxes and an environment that encourages business growth but not in this manner. This is all about corporate profit or about human greed in terms of individual US citizens who hire these illegals as Nannies or Gardeners or whatever - not in ALL cases, but in the majority.

The approach taken by Trump is the exact same approach taken by the Drug War - try to stop the supply and the demand will somehow magically disappear. The facts show that it must be a two-step approach, eliminate/reduce the demand side and the supply side will accordingly disappear.
 
Can't suck and blow at the same time.

...
I agree with the moral position.

The political position has to be practical.

A two-sided solution might be better, but is not strictly necessary. "Supply creates its own demand" in part means that a provider can prosper just by putting out something at a price point people find agreeable - even if it's disposable junk. If supply and demand side are both difficult to address, whether politically or practically, I expect the politically easier path to be taken no matter how much more practically difficult it is.
 
Back
Top