Tyndmyr wrote:Can you defend Trump as a candidate *without* resorting to attacking Clinton?
If I can't I have no business supporting him, and I really wish more people would ask themselves that question about their choice. Too many otherwise-constructive political debates devolve into name calling, insults, and tearing down the opposition's platform.
Agreed. I've previously asked the same question of the other side in this thread specifically because of this tendency. A candidate should stand on their own merits.
I think his plan for a wall along the border may be a stretch, but I fully agree with the message. We can't guarantee the safety and well-being of our citizens without secure borders. I think Clinton's characterization of his deportation plan is a little off the mark, too. Rather than going door to door rounding up anyone without documentation, Trump would simply instruct his immigration, justice, and border patrol to be more efficient and determined in their efforts when they find anyone who is here illegally. Proof of citizenship is required for most employment, and in most areas of the country, it is required for a wide range of licenses and permits. Anyone here illegally knows they're here illegally, and granting amnesty and citizenship condones the breaking of our laws while simultaneously slapping all legal immigrants in the face.
I believe that "instruct them to be more efficient and determined" is perhaps not much of a plan. Obama's admin has deported quite a lot of people, so it seems unlikely that they're all just sitting there, waiting for such instructions to come down the pipe.
In practice, it seems to be more a matter of money. Dramatic expansion of government programs that are not themselves productive comes with a bunch of cost. Now, sure, security sometimes is worth the cost, but I've not yet seen a persuasive breakdown of why this plan is worth it.
He has walked back his ban on Muslim immigrants statement to mean extreme vetting, and given the state of the world and the demographics of known terrorists, I believe it's unfortunate but not entirely unreasonable. While I don't personally know any Syrian refugees, I've known plenty of Bosnian refugees in the past. From what they've told me, and what I know of how I'd feel about relocation, I have to believe that the majority of Syrian citizens would prefer to remain in their own country if a safe zone could be established rather than being uprooted and moved across the globe.
While, in theory, a safe zone in Syria sounds nice, I have my doubts about either candidate establishing that. How do you think Trump would accomplish this?
Trump's plan to renegotiate NAFTA is something I've been waiting to hear a candidate support for quite some time. It may be good for the region, but it's terrible for the U.S. His plans to bring companies and jobs back to the U.S. from other countries is also a solid one which will give our economy a much-needed relief. Being tougher on China and other countries which devalue and manipulate currency will also help us on a global level.
NAFTA is, honestly, not a big deal. Sure, it has problems, and outsourcing production to Mexico likely has costs, specifically in manufacturing jobs, so it does form an example of a policy that would likely be more appreciated if anyone other than Trump were proposing it. But, in the grand scheme of things, US manufacturing is probably not going to have a massive rebound in jobs required anyways. And the scale of trade between US/Mexico/Canada is not immense.
In general, his policies in this area are more or less sane, but he's overselling the effects, and his lack of trustworthiness reduces the value of any such promises further. It doesn't matter what he promises if he doesn't get around to doing it.
One thing I haven't heard him talk much about which I really wish he would is how he would handle government entitlements. He talks big about corruption and putting Americans back to work, but with all the social welfare programs spiraling out of control, he'll need to address it sooner or later if he's elected.
It's a traditional republican issue, sure, but you're not going to get it from Trump. He fundamentally isn't a small government sort of person. It is deeply unlikely he will seek to limit his own power.
KnightExemplar wrote:In any case, if you pretend that Trump's statements are somehow eloquently worded like yours and that he isn't "really going to build a wall", then I can pretend that Clinton really isn't going to open up a pathway to citizenship and that all of that rhetoric is just fake right-wing propaganda. I mean, really, Trump has made the wall his cornerstone immigration policy for the past year. Its completely fucking stupid and demonstrates his utter ignorance towards this problem.
Honestly, he probably wouldn't build the wall. He might add some fencing or whatever, but the plan of "Make the Mexicans pay for it" will probably not work out. So, we'll see some marginal border security additions, success will be declared, nothing of import will change. The usual, with regards to the border.
Yablo wrote:I wholeheartedly believe that if Hillary Clinton wins and has her justices confirmed, the Supreme Court will willfully and irresponsibly misinterpret the Constitution of the United States, the document which serves as the backbone and frame of the nation.
What decisions, specifically, are you worried that the Clinton Supreme Court will hand down?
In fairness, even Fivethirtyeight frames a Hillary election as highly probable to pack the court with liberal judges, and they predict an overall partisan shift much greater than under Trump.
But partisanship is there for either side, of course. It's not great either way.
Personally, I don't want Roe v Wade revisited. It'd just be ugly, and it'd never end. Conservatives have been pretty bad at fighting abortion strategically, though. They can't stop themselves from calling for an outright ban, and it casts every attempt to revisit restrictions in a fairly obvious light. But, conservative judges have not attempted to overthrow RvW yet. Even when they have five judges on the bench. It might mean some bad calls on restrictions, but it's unlikely for the whole ball of wax to *actually* come up. Sometimes, I'm not even sure that pro-lifers actually want change. Sometimes it seems like they just want the eternal battle. Anyways, I think the 14th amendment often needs to be taken more seriously, and that personal autonomy is reasonable, and that even a cursory reading of the founders works indicates a general intent in favor of it. Ruling any way other than how they did would have unfortunate implications, and I'm pretty sure even the most conservative judge realizes that.
On the flip side, I also don't want Heller revisited. This seems much more likely with Clinton in the seat. She hates the decision, and has explicitly said it was wrongly decided. A larger partisan shift in judges makes this a more probable reversal.
sardia wrote:A side note, it's fairly common to say Trump flip flops a lot/can't trust Trump, but don't we have it backwards? Isn't Trump just sending out feelers to gauge the (republican) public perception? Like when he was riling up crowds about abortion, until he went too far, and his base turned on him. Trump immediately backed down on his statement that mothers who abort should be punished. So if the crowds cheer when he proposes brutalizing muslims, then he'll amp that up in the next line.
*shrug* I mean, yeah, that's what he's doing. Just, yknow, crudely. Clinton does essentially the same thing, but much slower. I mean, her shifting to supporting gay rights was no doubt because she realized that this was the politically strategic thing to do. It's something many politicians do to some extent. Trump's particularly crude about it, though, which is a little offputting.
But it's a demagogue vs idealist thing. I'd rather elect someone who actually shares my ideals, rather than someone who'll do whatever the majority wants at the time. It makes for more consistent long term policy. Even if Trump happens to proclaim my exact ideals now, I can be certain that his position will rapidly shift, and that makes him less valuable than someone who can be relied upon to fulfill promises.
Yablo wrote:It was intended to be a place where citizens could be free to do what they liked as long as they didn't harm another's mind, body, possessions, or livelihood. It was intended to be a place where people had no need to rely on or fear their government.
They also intended "citizens" to include only white people and "possessions" to include all black people.*
Buncha progressive librull weirdoes sure put a spanner in them spokes over the years, eh?
In fairness, slavery was a hot potato even at the drafting of the constitution, and the founding fathers were hardly in agreement on this point. We got a messy compromise that eventually blew up, rather than some unified ideology.
And it'd be a bit of a stretch to give "progressive liberals" credit for all this without a certain amount of distortion. Most anti-slavery stuff was shoved through by Republicans, and it wasn't particularly new, even at the time. Slavery vs anti-slavery was an old, old fight, and what you define as the previous normal depends a lot on what area, social class, etc you're looking at.
gmalivuk wrote:I can't decide if KnightExemplar's claim that conservative judges don't bend the Constitution is a No True Scotsman fallacy or just blatantly ahistorical nonsense.
In fairness, the originalist doctrine is *all* about not bending the constitution. That said, not every conservative judge is an originalist, and many certainly have explicitly bent it. Hell, even within the same doctrine, different views on what it originally was could theoretically generate conflict. So, your general point is certainly well taken. No party is blameless when it comes to partisanship.
That said, if memory serves, you do have a strong correlation between Democrats being in control of the court, and prior precedent being overruled. So, if we stop looking for perfection, and look at trends, sure, we can see that Democrats do prefer to use the court as a means of change.
Thesh wrote: Dark567 wrote:
spending money, in its view, was the same as written or verbal expression
That sounds like money = speech to me?
Contributions aren't spending, and Buckley v. Valeo did not strike down the laws on contributions. Spending money on advertising and giving money to a candidate are very different things.
Please. Trying to draw a distinction between contributions and spending is just a way to try to get to the conclusion you want. Are you seriously arguing that the government should be able to arbitrarily restrict charitable contributions? There's broader implications here.
Of course, in practice, everyone is much more eager to defend the right of the rich donor to give a million dollars to a kid's cancer ward than for the homeless person to ask for change.