LouieB Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Once again, conservatives don't want smaller government (particularly when it comes to the military), because how exactly do you round up 11 million people unless you hire a gigantic number of federal employees (or private contractors - didn't think of that) to bolster the IRS (as you point out) storm troops (to go in and raid everywhere), people to incarcerate individuals while they are awaiting deportment, bureaucrats to manage all aspects of this effort (housing, feeding, clothing, etc.) and all other aspects of this activity I can't even imagine. It would be cheaper and more productive to give everyone here illegally healthcare, homes, food, schools, etc. In this respect conservatives are really not conservative at all. Most people here illegally are working their asses off. (Spoken by someone who is a government regulator, it takes a ton of people and time to regulate correctly and rounding up people is NOT a small task.) LouieB Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 I guess they figure they will pay for it with fines on employers. Good luck with that. I would not trust Trump to manage anything financial. How many times has that fucker filed bankruptcy? Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Fines would have to be pretty huge to make up the personnel cost of all the people needed to mount something like this. And THEN you have to hire people to figure out what fines, telling the places they owe, collecting the fines, and managing the flow of money in and out. Big government (or government contractors) indeed. LouieB Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 I guess it would be all contracted out. Cool, we could have a whole new prison system! Genius! Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 I would not trust Trump to manage anything financial. How many times has that fucker filed bankruptcy?He would tell you that he has never filed for bankruptcy. If you pressed him he would tell you that a few corporations that he was tangentially involved in, went bankrupt, but he bears no responsibility. Would you guys agree that many Americans would have no problem with the Trump immigration plan, even though it would increase the government immensely and require unseemly jackbooted tactics? Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 So here's the thing about contracting things out; it STILL costs the government money because ultimately the government HAS to deal with the fines AND the details of bidding and managing the contracts out of contracts (unless these clowns want no bid contracts, but even so those contracts still have to have some oversight and someone needs to pay they contractors.) So much of this is flawed that it is beyond comprehension. LouieB Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Would you guys agree that many Americans would have no problem with the Trump immigration plan, even though it would increase the government immensely and require unseemly jackbooted tactics? There is such an anti-immigration sentiment on the far right they won't even consider the consequences of Trump's plan. Or they are just too stupid to realize the consequences. I wonder if there has been any real cost analysis of his plan? Billions of dollars to do this? Trillions? His candidacy is a joke, this plan proves it. He is there as a show. In fact I would not be surprised if shortly after he drops out there will be a Trump presidential reality show. But the thing is his numbers keep going up. I keep hammering on this, but look at what he is saying. Is he saying really anything that different from every other GOP candidate out there? Trump is the monster created by the far right. Each candidate must look in the mirror and see Trump's face smiling back at them. And if you plan on voting GOP in 2016. Look at the guy you support or wish to support. Is he that much different from Trump? Trump is the GOP. The GOP is Trump. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Except Bush. His wife is Mexican, so he is "soft on immigration." Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Except Bush. His wife is Mexican, so he is "soft on immigration." I read on the internet that the marriage is a sham. It said that he only married her to make her a legal immigrant because he'd get paid big narco bucks for doing it. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 I read on the internet that the marriage is a sham. It said that he only married her to make her a legal immigrant because he'd get paid big narco bucks for doing it.Oh shit. Is she a beard?! Link to post Share on other sites
twoshedsjackson Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 I'd like to think Trump's pulling some elaborate Andy Kaufman style prank on the GOP, but then I remember that he's always been a terrible human being. No one's long game could be that good. He sure is bringing this country's assholes out from under their rocks. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Didn't the GOP resolve to get Latinos behind them after O got reelected? If that was as important as the analysts said they're off to a failing start. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Didn't the GOP resolve to get Latinos behind them after O got reelected? If that was as important as the analysts said they're off to a failing start. And to stop being stupid. "We've got to stop being the stupid party. It's time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults," he said. "We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. I'm here to say we've had enough of that." -Bobby Jindal And I don't think Bobby himself is taking his own advice. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 I've been thinking about regulation of big oil and our energy policy. Aside from the environmental concerns such as high levels of methane gas (the worst green house gas) from fracking (they're just burning the stuff in ND wells instead of canning it and selling it), it hasn't been working economically the way we are lead to believe. Recent studies have indicated the surplus of American oil has harmed Colorado's economy. They're shutting down drills as the price has fallen to half. I'm paying $2.80 at the pump which is decent but not what you'd expect from a job siphoning surplus. There are some benefits to cheap energy, but "drill baby drill" and "frack baby frack" are currently economically as troublesome as they are ecologically. This shouldn't be a surprise to me, but I often forget. The one thing you can learn from both Woody Guthrie's "Bound for Glory" and Eduardo Galeano's exhaustive history of colonial and post colonial Latin America show us is the wealth from extracting valuable natural resources doesn't spread. Boom towns become ghost towns and the people who do the most physically taxing and dangerous work lose their jobs. I could go on, but I guess my point is that U.S. energy policy is either not being discussed at all, or in 2 dimensional partisan terms that are severely lacking in nuance. Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Cheap energy harms the energy sector, of course. But it frees up billions of dollars for the rest of the economy. Obviously, environmental concerns need to be accounted for as well. One area you left out was the importance of energy independence. The more energy independent we become, the more we can begin dealing with Arab states on our values rather than our needs. We rightly vilify Iran but turn a blind eye to atrocities in Saudi Arabia because we feel we need to. I'm not for drill, baby, drill. I am, however, for an energy policy that stresses both independence and sustainability, in that order. So I think we need to carefully exploit our fossil fuel resources and maybe tax some of that profit to invest into R&D of green energy. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 My question is how can we exploit our own resources more carefully? The economy has simultaneously disinsentivised extraction and environmental precaution. Everyone loses. Off to the side, wind and solar have come a long way in the last decade. The home solar market has been expanding since the rise of entrepreneurial companies in that niche offering more affordable panel technology. Once someone corners the market on a viable storage battery I think we'll see a lot of people going off the grid. Ideally this is the century where we transition off of oil and coal. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 I don't think you could have assembled a bigger group of anti-intellectual, anti-science, lying, pandering group of idiots if you tried. Jesus Just a group of general idiocy. I can't fathom how any reasonable, sane person could honestly consider voting for one of these people for the leader of the free world. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Are you talking about one party or both? Link to post Share on other sites
calvino Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Regarding last night debate - I thought Rand Paul was alright - at least he doesn't want to invade every country on the earth. He has a sound drug policy, too --- maybe tax policy, too - but I haven't gotten too involved on Paul's tax stance. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Are you talking about one party or both? Yes one party. Last night's debate was a travesty. Let's take the current (non-Trump) media darling right now, Carly Fiorina. Her comments on abortion were so completely wrong, misguided and stupid, I was flabbergasted that it was said. For those who did not watch, or did not see she said this: As regards Planned Parenthood, anyone who has watched this videotape, I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes,” she said. “Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, it’s heart beating, it’s legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/09/17/at-debate-carly-fiorina-described-scenes-not-in-abortion-videos/ I am sorry that is not what happens. Sure she can be anti-choice, that is fine, but either she is a complete moron or is willfully pandering to the far right. It is truly disgusting what she did there. Regarding last night debate - I thought Rand Paul was alright - at least he doesn't want to invade every country on the earth. He has a sound drug policy, too --- maybe tax policy, too - but I haven't gotten too involved on Paul's tax stance. If you like a regressive flat tax that favors the rich then Rand Paul is your man, I guess. Or if you like someone who will pander to the far right by shooting a gun at some paper then Rand is your man too. https://vine.co/v/eUOiDaVYeF1 Link to post Share on other sites
calvino Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Well the tax code probably could use a few bullet holes shot through it --- I do understand your whole point about pandering to the gun-owning-tax-hating people and I do see it as such, too - but that's politics. Like I said, I havn't read much into Paul's tax ideas. Link to post Share on other sites
brownie Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Why is Carly Fiorina even in the running? She is a failed executive at a company I gave 17 years of my life (Lucent/Bell Labs) from which she departed shortly before it imploded. And she was not very successful at HP either. She presents herself well but there is no true leadership substance behind the public face. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Yes one party. Last night's debate was a travesty. You, me and several other millions will never like any of them. The point for me is to see which one is popular with those elephants, and if they could actually win. The longer it goes on the less I believe I have the ability to detect that. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Ladies and Gentlemen your GOP front runner: http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/17/politics/donald-trump-obama-muslim-new-hampshire/index.html (autoplay warning) I can only assume that Trump's numbers will go up after comments like these. If this does not speak volumes of the current state of the GOP I don't know what does. Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 "You know, a lot of people are saying that and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening. We're going to be looking at that and many other things." I can definitely get behind a candidate who promises to look at things. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts