Post New

Those Pesky Iranians are at it again.

Blinken held a presser this AM where he discussed the dilemma posed by Iran shipping missiles to Russia. Russia has plenty of missiles but the Russian-made are capable of longer range attacks. The Iranian arms will substitute for the short range attacks, and will free up the Russian missiles to attack deeper into Ukraine.

I hope to hear some ideas about taming the Middle East in tonight's spectacle.

Meanwhile, we need a firm hand right now, not four months from now. I suggest that Biden shed his beach ware, put on a suit and a stern demeanor, and make a short public statement, mustering all the determination of Winston Churchill, and declare, "Don't".

bighairymike: I suggest that Biden shed his beach ware, put on a suit and a stern demeanor, and make a short public statement, mustering all the determination of Winston Churchill, and declare, "Don't".

Huh.

At the Economic Club of NY DonOld Trump suggested he would lift sanctions on Iran and Russia, that, somehow, sanctions were bad for the dollar.

BTW, do you think Blinken has imposed sanctions without Biden's involvement and approval?

Oh wait, you're in the cult.

And I haven't seen you yet acknowledge that DonOld does in fact want sanctions of up to 20% on all imports.

Waiting.

I hope to hear some ideas about taming the Middle East in tonight's spectacle.

I'm pretty sure we already know Trump's plans for both Ukraine and the Middle East.

Ukraine: Let Putin have whatever territory he wants.
Middle East: Do whatever Netanyahu wants. Kill Gazans? Fine. Kill Palestinians? Fine. Just leave the Saudis alone. Talk about Iran, do nothing.

And some bonus foreign policies--

China: Impose a big tariff because that doesn't really hurt China, it hurts poor and middle class Americans, even those his poor and middle class supporters are too dumb to know they're being hurt. And then let Xi do whatever he wants with Taiwan and the Uyghurs and the South China Sea.
North Korea: Let Kim do whatever he wants with his nuclear program.


I don't actually need to know what Harris' policies are, as each and every one of these is just plain stupid. Doing nothing would be better. It would be nearly impossible to do worse.

--Peter

I don't actually need to know what Harris' policies are, as each and every one of these is just plain stupid. Doing nothing would be better. It would be nearly impossible to do worse.

--Peter

-------------

Low expectations is no substitute for having good policies and plans. But that is the only position you can take since not even she knows what her policies are, except at the 100,000 foot, "we're gonna have an opportunity economy" level.

Low expectations is no substitute for having good policies and plans.

It's your turn. Defend Trump's policies and plans if you're so fond of them. Where did I misstate a Trump policy? And if I did (and I certainly might have oversimplified a bit) what is the correct Trump policy? Why is that a good policy?

It's time for you to do what you've been asking Harris (and Biden) supporters to do. Defend your candidate.

--Peter

>>Low expectations is no substitute for having good policies and plans.<<

It's your turn. Defend Trump's policies and plans if you're so fond of them. Where did I misstate a Trump policy? And if I did (and I certainly might have oversimplified a bit) what is the correct Trump policy? Why is that a good policy?

It's time for you to do what you've been asking Harris (and Biden) supporters to do. Defend your candidate. - Petey

------------------------

Changing the topic there, Petey.

Here is what you said, that I reacted to

I don't actually need to know what Harris' policies are, as each and every one of these is just plain stupid. Doing nothing would be better. It would be nearly impossible to do worse. - Petey

I did not mention Trump or his policies in my post. I was responding only to your admission of not needing to know what Harris' policies are...
Your lack of concern about her policies affords her luxury of not being expected to articulate and defend her policies.

I did not accuse you of misstating Trumps position although you probably have on more than on occasion.

I don't actually need to know what Harris' policies are, as each and every one of these is just plain stupid. Doing nothing would be better. It would be nearly impossible to do worse. - Petey

I did not mention Trump or his policies in my post. I was responding only to your admission of not needing to know what Harris' policies are...
Your lack of concern about her policies affords her luxury of not being expected to articulate and defend her policies.

There's something to be said for that, especially when it comes to domestic policies. I personally don't care much about the specifics of a Presidential candidate's domestic policies. Getting in the weeds of what they say they plan to do is a fool's errand. What I care about are their priorities.

That's because Presidents almost never get to actually implement their preferred policies, so the details of what they would do in a vacuum are largely irrelevant. No matter what the candidate wants to enact - much less what they say they want to enact - the details almost never survive contact with political reality. The ur-example of this is the 2008 Democratic primary clash between the Clinton and Obama health care proposals, where the candidates (and pundits and voters and analysts) pored over the details of the two competing plans. Marked primarily by a sharp difference in philosophy over mandates. Obama was against them, vigorously pushing back against Clinton's promotion of them. Hence the irony when Obamacare passed with mandates.

What's far more important is knowing a candidate's priorities, because they can make a consequential choice in what they choose to emphasize. Obama very clearly prioritized health care over almost any other issue - that was the top of his list. Next up was finance reform in response to the Great Recession. Issues that he campaigned on, and had very specific policy proposals, but didn't get prioritized just didn't happen - which is why the details of the immigration reform or EFCA or any of a number of matters ended up being utterly irrelevant.

I would like to know what Harris' main priorities are. I could care less what type of health care plan or housing affordability program she thinks is best.

Here is what you said, that I reacted to

But I said that after listing what I claimed was a summary of Trump's policies, Michael. You've got to read my comment in context.

And I'll stick with my statement. After putting [an oversimplified and slightly strawman version of] Trump's policies down, I dismissed them as stupid. From that standpoint, I don't need to know Harris' policies in detail because even moderately bad policies are better than the very bad policies of Trump.

In reality, I do know several of Harris' policies and agree with them. I suspect you know them as well, even if you don't agree with them.

Which gets to my real point. I feel like I've been doing all of the work here, spelling out policies and trying to show why I think Harris' are better than Trump's. In the mean time, you just dismiss my analysis as wrong. So I'm kind of done with that one-sided method of discussion. It's your turn to explain why Trump's policies are good for the country, Michael.

--Peter

It's your turn to explain why Trump's policies are good for the country, Michael.

--Petey

-------------

Okay Petey, here's one

Putting a stop as best he can to an unending stream of immigrants is good for our county. Why is that good? We already have run out of money to support them and a small number of them are hardened criminals who are preying on our population. Trump would deport them, Harris wants to disband ICE.

When we deport anyone for whatever reason, they need to stay deported. Hence a significant emphasis on border security is called for which is different than simply increasing our welcome wagon capacity. We are more likely to have a president who will take a hard line on immigrant crime with Trump. Harris has a well earned reputation for being soft on crime. No border security system can be perfect so there will be violators who must be apprehended and deported, hence we need more ICE, and an end to sanctuary cities or states. Both of which are more likely under Trump than Harris.

bighairymike: Putting a stop as best he can to an unending stream of immigrants is good for our county [sic]. Why is that good? We already have run out of money to support them and a small number of them are hardened criminals who are preying on our population. Trump would deport them, Harris wants to disband ICE.

Um, what now?

First of all, there's no way for Trump to "deport them". There's no funding, there's no infrastructure, and not enough buses and planes to even begin to remove millions of immigrants who are so tightly woven into the fabric of the economy. Second, you're holding Harris to something she said five years ago. She has changed her position on ICE.

But since you're not even aware that Trump has called for up to 20% tariffs on all imports, there's no way you're keeping up with Harris's policies.

bighairymike: No border security system can be perfect so there will be violators who must be apprehended and deported, hence we need more ICE...

Um, we had it. Trump killed it. You're backing the wrong candidate. Harris has said she will ask Congress to bring back the Lankford border bill and sign it when passed.

Trump will have a bill in two weeks. And two weeks more. And two weeks more. And then in another two weeks. Getting it here in two more weeks. And then another two weeks.

Putting a stop as best he can to an unending stream of immigrants is good for our county.

Fair enough. That's a reasonable policy, even if I can make arguments against it.

So why, then, did Trump feel the need to come out against the immigration bill that was wending its way through Congress earlier this year? Keep in mind that he didn't suggest changing it or improving it. He said to kill it. If he's in favor of immigration reform, why didn't he suggest changes to the bill to make it more to his liking?

Yes, the bill may have had a high likelihood of not passing. But by coming out against the bill, it sure sounds like he doesn't want to solve the immigration problem.

That he let slip that he didn't want the bill to pass so he could use immigration as something to run on just makes it worse.

Why does Trump do things like this that don't seem to match up with his policy positions? After all, if you think immigration is an important policy, why suggest killing an immigration bill instead of suggesting changes that would improve it?

It's almost as if Trump is lying about the importance of immigration reform to the country. But that couldn't be the explanation, could it, Mikey?

--Peter

remove millions of immigrants who are so tightly woven into the fabric of the economy - CO

---------------

Millions no, it will challenging enough to round up the criminals.

"Woven into the fabric economy" applies to a long ago immigrant, they are not in play. The recent ones can't get a work permit so their only participation in the economy is to consume resources that used to go to inner city citizens who are poor.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.