As in protectionist (Hamiltonian trade warrior/closed border types).
If I had to assume that border control meant racist, imagine what I'd think of the Mexican government, which demands a demographic quota in its population as official policy...
It's pretty significant that even post-nomination, even on Convention Day, several prominent members of his own party wouldn't support him.
The prominent figures the "Never Trump" movement is throwing around are made of Bush era neocons and establishment types.
Nevertheless, I think the infighting is substantially comparable to the Jimmy Carter/Ted Kennedy rivalry.
A Pat Buchanan like faction of the GOP, as defined by trade wars, is represented by the Trumpsters. No telling if this dies out once he's gone.
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/08/11/never-trump-republicans-could-have-their-revenge
Oh if it were only the border perhaps you'd gave an argumentAs in protectionist (Hamiltonian trade warrior/closed border types).
If I had to assume that border control meant racist, imagine what I'd think of the Mexican government, which demands a demographic quota in its population as official policy...
"Are demographic quotas racist? The US implements this for immigration. As do all other countries that have limited immigration slots. Those are indirect quotas. They’re designed to limit mass migration. They’re not just locally designed to stop influx of populations as economic control on a fair playing field internationally, but also globally designed to prevent systematic infiltration of other cultures. And not in a racist sense."Are demographic quotas racist? The US implements this for immigration. As do all other countries that have limited immigration slots. Those are indirect quotas. They’re designed to limit mass migration. They’re not just locally designed to stop influx of populations as economic control on a fair playing field internationally, but also globally designed to prevent systematic infiltration of other cultures. And not in a racist sense. I mean that much in the sense of how the US attempts to globally insert its businesses and general footprint in other countries. Stuff like international aid and development supports US workers abroad, benefits locals, and grows US interests in developing countries. You know, like, signing up for a credit card with an amazing signing bonus. In theory you’d want this deal to be a win-win.
What about literal quotas? Demographic quotas. Affirmative action and the sort. Are they racist? It’s a sticky subject, in my opinion. In theory yes, they are. In theory you’d want systemic racism to not exist. If it didn’t exist, affirmative action is racist. But systemic racism is real. If we don’t have leveled playing fields, minorities do get shat on. So there needs to be a happy medium of merit along with reparation of a broken system.
Luckily our system attempts at that. There are general lottery visas for anyone from any country. There are quotas for people from specific countries. And lastly, there are special visas that are both not-lottery and not demographic specific, that target highly qualified individuals of merit.
System might not be perfect, but I really think we all love to engage in ideological debate about a binary 0/1 system that doesn’t and can’t exist. Our current system is at least the right framework. We need to make it work so that in the future we can happily progress from it.
"I think limiting never Trumpers to the neocon faction of the right is incorrect."I think limiting never Trumpers to the neocon faction of the right is incorrect.
But it is interesting you bring up Buchanan. I think Trump very much modeled his campaign on Buchanan. Along with Bannon, I think he saw the rise of the alt right and knew there was something there to tap into.
https://youtu.be/Sk-s8hrmpFE
If they saw the momentum of the alt-right types, I sure didn't. Luckily, I think that's dying down, as "Unite the Right 2" had a much weaker turnout.
The term seems to have evolved, as if to say, "white identitarian." I don't think it carried that baggage when Brietbart seemed to embrace it. Milo Yiannopolis once did (or at least didn't mind it), but by the time his book was published, he despised the said group.All you had to do was read Breitbart every once in awhile to see it on the rise. As far as the decline, we'll see, I mean they don't feel as emboldened as they did a year ago, but Trump will have to give them voice again if he wants to win in 2020. He needed them in 2016, can he do without them in 2020?
The term seems to have evolved, as if to say, "white identitarian." I don't think it carried that baggage when Brietbart seemed to embrace it. Milo Yiannopolis once did (or at least didn't mind it), but by the time his book was published, he despised the said group.
We're talking about a small segment of the population that is despised, left and right. How one reaches Richard Spencer (pro-single payer, legalized abortion, etc) AND a more conventional conservative audience, who knows. I don't know how credibility works in AltRightLand. Especially from a guy who threw this gem around.View attachment 12067
Bannon drove the nationalistic/protectionist narrative, which resonated beyond what we call "the Alt-right." Bannon is now out of an official position, and has been for some time. Bush-era neocons now buzz in Trump's ear.This is revisionist. Bannon wanted this audience, he knew the right wouldn’t survive without embracing them. Spencer is only one tiny sliver of that pie. And you’re kidding me, you don’t know how he reached them?
Bannon drove the nationalistic/protectionist narrative, which resonated beyond what we call "the Alt-right." Bannon is now out of an official position, and has been for some time. Bush-era neocons now buzz in Trump's ear.
Again, the "alt-right" as currently defined is strictly identitarian, likely composed of a very small fraction of the population (I'd be very surprised if it exceeded 1 percent). He needed them? Even when it was sure to drive and perpetuate the "Never Trump" movement?
I on the other hand pay the highest marginal rate and by a lot. Same for my husband. We pay 6 figures in income taxes every year. To say nothing of property taxes, consumption taxes, capital gains. Yes we work very hard but we also benefit from being in well compensated roles. Why do you deserve to benefit from social services paid for by people like me?
Peter Strzok has a GoFundMe page going, if you're feeling charitable.
Sorry that’s also not part of the “I got mine, fuck you” attitude being propagated by that poster.
You pay taxes because you're forced to, if that makes you feel charitable, so be it. I think taxes are outrageous, and you make way more money than i do.
You pay taxes because you're forced to, if that makes you feel charitable, so be it. I think taxes are outrageous, and you make way more money than i do.
It STILL doesn't explain why some people would feel like money should be taken from you, and "redistributed" to anyone. That's theft, and it's no way to teach anyone a strong work ethic, I'm sorry.
You think there aren't that many people abusing the welfare system, believe me, in my line of work, and in neighborhoods I've lived in, and statistics show, there are PLENTY. People have tried to teach me how to "work the system" and have more money than if I'm working. With all due respect, if you're making the kind of money that you say, you probably don't run into as many of these folks as I do.
Again, I am FAR from rich, as I said before probably considered "low middle class". But I still don't feel that I am owed anything from anybody. I'm not on here saying "you make six figures", you should pay higher taxes and let the government take care of it.
I can't understand how you guys who think this way giving our bloated, nearly bankrupt federal government MORE of our money is somehow "compassionate or noble".
Real compassion is shown by what you CHOOSE to do with your time and money. Anitram, I think you should take home MORE of your money, and then you can CHOOSE to give to those less fortunate, or to organizations that you believe in.
I want the same for me, and for anyone, regardless of income. There are many rich liberals who could give away as much money as they want, and not have to use the government as a "forced go-between".
Look, the irony of it is that I do think that my tax rate is too high, not because I am opposed to a social safety net but because I believe the bureaucracy is bloated, the public sector here is unrealistic in the long term (almost all job growth is in the public sector which is unsustainable and terrible for our economy in the long run, they need to get rid of defined benefit pensions because those are enormous liabilities imposed on society and plain irresponsible). Our highest marginal rate keeps getting higher and far left politicians run on "well you earn that much you can afford to pay a bit more." To what end? You can only squeeze the top 1, 2, 3% so much before they take their money elsewhere. Also bad for society.
What bothers me is this notion that paying taxes is "theft" when clearly it is not, and when you come on here and complain that "most of us" (I would guess you're talking to a lot of coastal elites here who really are paying quite a bit in tax) likely pay little in taxes so we are effectively taking from you and giving to ourselves. Well it's a matter of perspective, because I can see you the same way. And you can say that you'd like me and you to keep more $ but we cannot provide infrastructure, public education, military and so many other things. And for that and for society to function you rely on high income earners.
I just wonder if many, not saying you, if they weren't FORCED to give through taxes, would still give if they had that money in their pockets. Like I always say, it's easy to spend other people's money, which goes back to the start of this Socialism/Capitalism discussion.
But at the same time you think that charities could provide a social safety net? Do you not see how those two views are entirely incompatible? What happens to society if people don't give? We live in anarchy?
The other thing is that while it is a nice, and even romantic, view that your children have all the same opportunities and can be anything they want to be, you don't sound stupid so you must be aware of the limits of meritocracy. Your children are better off than kids below them on the socio-economic scale, BUT they will have a very hard time competing with children of the wealthy. The ones who went to the best private schools, who had tutors, who played elite sports, who learned multiple languages, whose parents were connected enough to get them the best jobs, who attended places like Harvard on the basis of legacy, etc. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.
I was born dirt poor, I was a war time refugee arriving in the west with nothing but the clothes on my back at the age of 12, after being separated from my parents during the war and taking care of myself and my 9 year old brother in foster care. We lived a hard life and that will never leave the impressions I have had of people who owed us nothing but gave us everything. To the extent that I can be of help now to those who need it because I am in a lucrative profession and because in truth I married a man who plainly makes a ton of $, then so be it. I do feel a great debt to the society which took me in when it didn't need to.
I guess that's the interesting part, and you nailed it.
SO MANY people talk about helping others, that we "are the party of compassion", etc. etc. But even you do not trust that enough people would give of their own resources to make up what the "forced taxes/government safety net" does.
So who is really compassionate? Those that give willingly, out of the love of their heart for others.
I just wish people would get real about these discussions, and not hide behind empty virtue signaling about "free healthcare, free education, socialism, tax the rich". Those phrases are empty when you think.....would enough people give to take care of those in need? That's my whole point.
And I know it sounded romantic about my kids, but I also told them them will have to bust their ass, and sometimes life's not fair anyway.! But if you don't give the effort, you have no chance to achieve.
Good conversation, sorry I tend to ramble
You pay taxes because you're forced to, if that makes you feel charitable, so be it. I think taxes are outrageous, and you make way more money than i do.
It STILL doesn't explain why some people would feel like money should be taken from you, and "redistributed" to anyone. That's theft, and it's no way to teach anyone a strong work ethic, I'm sorry.
You think there aren't that many people abusing the welfare system, believe me, in my line of work, and in neighborhoods I've lived in, and statistics show, there are PLENTY. People have tried to teach me how to "work the system" and have more money than if I'm working. With all due respect, if you're making the kind of money that you say, you probably don't run into as many of these folks as I do.
Again, I am FAR from rich, as I said before probably considered "low middle class". But I still don't feel that I am owed anything from anybody. I'm not on here saying "you make six figures", you should pay higher taxes and let the government take care of it.
I can't understand how you guys who think this way giving our bloated, nearly bankrupt federal government MORE of our money is somehow "compassionate or noble".
Real compassion is shown by what you CHOOSE to do with your time and money. Anitram, I think you should take home MORE of your money, and then you can CHOOSE to give to those less fortunate, or to organizations that you believe in.
I want the same for me, and for anyone, regardless of income. There are many rich liberals who could give away as much money as they want, and not have to use the government as a "forced go-between".
If it makes you feel better, truly rich people hire people to help them avoid paying taxes altogether.