Howard Schultz (former SBUX CEO) Running in 2020 - Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative

thebrofessor's picture
Rank: The Pro | 28,238

I've personally been looking for a socially liberal fiscally conservative candidate for some time (classical liberalism if you will). anti-border wall, anti-deficit, anti-UBI, pro-environment...

a couple of faux pas with race while at SBUX, but this sounds promising. what does WSO think?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/howard-schultz-starbu...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/business/howard-sch...

Comments (109)

Jan 30, 2019

I doubt he's actually gonna run. Biggest criticism right now for him is that if he runs 3rd party he will for sure get Trump re-elected. A large chunk of the republican party will continue to vote for whoever the republican candidate is at that time because of the amount of single issue voters, as in people will vote red because they are against gay marriage even if they do not care about anything else. A large percentage of these people are actually hurt by Trump policies. For example a higher percentage of people that voted for Trump will be hurt by rollbacks on food stamps.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-10...
With that said I completely agree with his stances on most everything and would much rather have him or Bloomberg run democrat and win the primaries, but that is starting to look more and more like a stretch.

    • 1
    • 5
Jan 30, 2019

He needs to run under the democratic party or not run at all. @ForexOptions Republicans have been using race and religion to con poor people into voting against their own interests for decades now, that's nothing new or surprising.

edit: I see all the MS (which is fine) yet no one has provided a succinct reason as to why poor people should vote republican. Would be nice to hear some reasonable thoughts.

    • 7
    • 17
Jan 30, 2019

Please. The democrats are the ones who love identity politics. Do you even politic bro? /s

I disagree but that's because I'm a conservative.

    • 4
    • 3
Most Helpful
Jan 31, 2019

Those Democrats sure do a great job lifting their voters out of poverty in inner cities. Detroit, Newark, St. Louis are flooded with prosperity. It's why theres such a massive flood out of conservative run cities and states into liberal ones.

    • 11
Jan 31, 2019

Almost all cities are run by democrats. And you didn't outline how voting republican is beneficial to the poor. But good try?

    • 3
    • 2
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jan 31, 2019

I generally enjoy your content bro, but you're off base here. the poverty rate has oscillated between 8-12% since 1966 with no clear correlation to political party in power.

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/table...
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dem...
if you can find a pattern there, be my guest, but by my observation, poverty rate seems to oscillate with the economy, not who's in charge, and there have been multiple studies that show economic growth and political party bear no, or at the least very weak correlations with one another.

    • 3
Jan 31, 2019
thebrofessor:

I generally enjoy your content bro, but you're off base here. the poverty rate has oscillated between 8-12% since 1966 with no clear correlation to political party in power.

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/table...
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dem...
if you can find a pattern there, be my guest, but by my observation, poverty rate seems to oscillate with the economy, not who's in charge, and there have been multiple studies that show economic growth and political party bear no, or at the least very weak correlations with one another.

Agreed, there isn't much politicians can do about the economy (for the most part), I never said dems reduce the poverty rate. But here is what I am saying. Which party is calling for programs that provide a social net to the poor when they are in poverty? Is it the republicans or the dems? Stuff like food stamps, medicare/medicaid, housing vouchers etc. may not lift you out of poverty but they certainly make poverty more bearable, don't they? Given that reality, how does it benefit poor ppl to vote republican? Why is some guy living on $15k in rural Alabama voting for the Republican party other than race and religion (and guns, I forgot guns in my original post)?

    • 3
    • 1
Feb 9, 2019

Factually incorrect. Poverty rate exceeds 12% during periods of distress. Also, poverty was declining rapidly until LBJ and the war on poverty. This is especially true in black communities. The decline in black communities is positively correlated to welfareism. LBJ said it himself:

"these negros, they're getting pretty uppity these days, and that's a problem for us...
We've gotta give em a little something. Just enough to quiet them down, but not enough to make a difference."

Jan 31, 2019
BobTheBaker:

He needs to run under the democratic party or not run at all. @ForexOptions Republicans have been using race and religion to con poor people into voting against their own interests for decades now, that's nothing new or surprising.

edit: I see all the MS (which is fine) yet no one has provided a succinct reason as to why poor people should vote republican. Would be nice to hear some reasonable thoughts.

Poor people should vote Republican because capitalism provides opportunity while socialism provides catastrophe. The Democrats have gone so far to the Left in the last 2(!) years that they're making 2016 Hillary Clinton look like Ronald Reagan.

Feb 1, 2019
real_Skankhunt42:
BobTheBaker:

He needs to run under the democratic party or not run at all. @ForexOptions Republicans have been using race and religion to con poor people into voting against their own interests for decades now, that's nothing new or surprising.

edit: I see all the MS (which is fine) yet no one has provided a succinct reason as to why poor people should vote republican. Would be nice to hear some reasonable thoughts.

Poor people should vote Republican because capitalism provides opportunity while socialism provides catastrophe. The Democrats have gone so far to the Left in the last 2(!) years that they're making 2016 Hillary Clinton look like Ronald Reagan.

Extreme socialism provides catastrophe (in that sense, I can't support AOC, Sanders and the like) but de-funding social programs and limiting medicare/medicaid is unfettered capitalism, which will likely lead to (and is probably already leading to) the kind of extreme socialism that we're all against here. The United States is probably the worst among developed western countries when it comes to social programs for the poor, and republicans are the reason for that. Meanwhile, we pour money into the military. There is also no evidence that trickle-down economics actually works (in fact it's bullshit). There should be a balance, and while I don't agree with the likes of Sanders, there is certainly room for improvement in ALL of our social programs, especially healthcare. Cancer is the biggest cause of bankruptcy in this country, which is insane.

    • 5
Feb 10, 2019

Capitalism gets people out of poverty

What do you call an economist who forecasts? Wrong!

Jan 30, 2019

He is currently weighing the net positive/net negative in being socially liberal while founding a large-cap, global corporation.

Personally, I like him, so far. He talks of an American in government being in service to Americans, focusing on individual issues like poverty, while also laughing at the left's erratic ideas of universal whatever and the right's idea of spend spend on the military and this stupid wall thing.

Also, I think he should stay away from the republicans and the democrats. Both sides want retarded things that make no sense. If he has to shut the government down like Trump for something that sucks, it will not change anything.

    • 2
Jan 30, 2019
iBankedUp:

I think he should stay away from the republicans and the democrats.

He has essentially a 0% chance of winning as an independent. All he would do is act as spoiler.

Jan 30, 2019
CRE:
iBankedUp:

I think he should stay away from the republicans and the democrats.

He has essentially a 0% chance of winning as an independent. All he would do is act as spoiler.

That's just a historical statistic. If Warren or Bernie became the nominee, do you really believe the Trump/Obama moderates and some more moderate leftists wouldn't go for it, if he has a machine of $500MM+ behind him?

Jan 30, 2019
iBankedUp:

He is currently weighing the net positive/net negative in being socially liberal while founding a large-cap, global corporation.

Personally, I like him, so far. He talks of an American in government being in service to Americans, focusing on individual issues like poverty, while also laughing at the left's erratic ideas of universal whatever and the right's idea of spend spend on the military and this stupid wall thing.

Also, I think he should stay away from the republicans and the democrats. Both sides want retarded things that make no sense. If he has to shut the government down like Trump for something that sucks, it will not change anything.

It's all analytics. Probably some here realize this, but most of America doesn't, when people run for President, they do a ton of research before they came any more. They try to make it seem off the cuff because more people like that, but Schultz probably has all the data he needs, he's just slowly getting the ball rolling.

    • 2
Jan 30, 2019
ironman32:
iBankedUp:

He is currently weighing the net positive/net negative in being socially liberal while founding a large-cap, global corporation.

Personally, I like him, so far. He talks of an American in government being in service to Americans, focusing on individual issues like poverty, while also laughing at the left's erratic ideas of universal whatever and the right's idea of spend spend on the military and this stupid wall thing.

Also, I think he should stay away from the republicans and the democrats. Both sides want retarded things that make no sense. If he has to shut the government down like Trump for something that sucks, it will not change anything.

It's all analytics. Probably some here realize this, but most of America doesn't, when people run for President, they do a ton of research before they came any more. They try to make it seem off the cuff because more people like that, but Schultz probably has all the data he needs, he's just slowly getting the ball rolling.

Yah, I'd be ok either way, independent or democrat. I think if there's a good chance he can whip up a machine to gather enough support as an independent candidate, I'm all for that, as opposed to being held hostage by the nut jobs on the ends of the spectrum.

    • 6
Jan 30, 2019

Rather torn to be honest. The whole socially liberal / fiscally conservative angle fits me to a T, but Schultz seems like an imperfect vessel, and more importantly, Schultz running increases Trump's chances of reelection dramatically.

I'd much rather he sack up and run as a Third Way Democrat or a Rockefeller Republican of sorts instead of acting as spoiler.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2019

Yep Schultz takes off a far bigger vote from the Dems given their progressive agenda than he does from the GOP.

Jan 31, 2019
CRE:

Rather torn to be honest. The whole socially liberal / fiscally conservative angle fits me to a T, but Schultz seems like an imperfect vessel, and more importantly, Schultz running increases Trump's chances of reelection dramatically.

I'd much rather he sack up and run as a Third Way Democrat or a Rockefeller Republican of sorts instead of acting as spoiler.

There is zero chance that the Democrats nominate a white, Jewish, billionaire male in 2020. Schultz would be completely wasting his time running as a Democrat.

Feb 1, 2019

Glad someone finally mentioned the Jewish bit. Having spent a significant amount of time at one point in the heartland, there is still a stigma against Jews.

Feb 1, 2019
real_Skankhunt42:

There is zero chance that the Democrats nominate a white, Jewish, billionaire male in 2020. Schultz would be completely wasting his time running as a Democrat.

I agree with you, although stranger things have happened. Trump had "zero chance" to win in the party of free trade and morality as well.

    • 1
Jan 30, 2019

I hope he runs as a dem or waits until next cycle and runs as an independent. It would be great to have someone who is a real self-made billionaire run.

A little disappointing that you don't see it more often. Would love to have a presidential race stacked with legit billionaires.

How cool would an Oprah VS Dahlio or a Schultz VS Schwarzman be? A lot more fun than some fucking loser politician who has never done anything in her life vs habitual liar and pseudobillionaire Trump. Right now it's always picking between two paste eating room temperature psychopaths.

Jan 30, 2019
m_1:

A lot more fun than some fucking loser politician who has never done anything in her life vs habitual liar and pseudobillionaire Trump. Right now it's always picking between two paste eating room temperature psychopaths.

+1SB for that quote... I can't believe she said how come no one ever tells billionaires to work their way up, when literally Schultz is the textbook definition of rags to riches

thots and prayers

Jan 30, 2019

I hope he runs and takes a few votes away from the Dems. Trump 2020 MAGA.

    • 8
    • 1
Jan 30, 2019
famejranc:

I hope he runs and takes a few votes away from the Dems. Trump 2020 MAGA.

If he reviews his chances as an Independent, came to the conclusion that he should run as a dem, NO maga 2020.

Jan 31, 2019
iBankedUp:
famejranc:

I hope he runs and takes a few votes away from the Dems. Trump 2020 MAGA.

If he reviews his chances as an Independent, came to the conclusion that he should run as a dem, NO maga 2020.

There's no fcking way in hell Schultz would win the Dem nomination. It's going to be a far left, 70% Income Tax / 77% estate tax / "free" healthcare/college for all candidate.

Biden IMO is the Dems only hope for a moderate candidate.

    • 2
Jan 30, 2019

I hope you realize Schultz's financially conservative views will win him over with many Trump voters as well.

thots and prayers

Jan 31, 2019

Trump voters knew what they were getting with him. Nothing has changed. Schultz will take out a bigger % of dems who don't subscribe to the whole progressive BS.

    • 1
Jan 30, 2019

I mean, we're looking at a Presidential election decided by coffee.

You know most people are going to vote for/against him purely based on if they like Starbucks coffee or the pound cake at SBUX doesn't taste fresh.

    • 3
Jan 30, 2019

That's not a good sign. Starbucks coffee is often burnt, but tolerable and dependable at least. Starbucks food is atrocious.

    • 1
Jan 30, 2019

Try the double-smoked bacon cheddar & egg sandwich and get back to me mate.

Jan 31, 2019

yeah you'd think with today's technology they'd figure out a way not to burn the hell out of their coffee

    • 1
Funniest
Jan 30, 2019

Coffee vs. Covfefe 2020

We are truly living in the Blade Runner timeline

    • 4
Jan 31, 2019
ironman32:

the pound cake at SBUX doesn't taste fresh.

I'd let Howie pound my two cakes :)
It'd be a latte fun

Feb 1, 2019

finally someone who knows the real world

Cash and cash equivalents: $138,311
Financial instruments and other inventory positions owned: $448,166

Feb 1, 2019

You joke but it's 100% true.

Jan 30, 2019

I think it's great. You can't ever have people like Warren or AOC be president of this country with their absurd views on finance. That being said I think Schultz will be able to take away enough votes from "Democratic Socialists" to ensure they don't win. It's ridiculous that Dems are telling him not to run--they're only doing so because they're power hungry. Schultz can easily take away a lot of voters from Trump's voter base as well. Trump's fiscally conservative views are what won him over with several people I know -----It was more like "yeah Trump's no good, but Hillary is a killer, and at least Trump won't take away as much of my money as she will" Also I think it's time for an Independent president that's not bounded by party loyalties.

thots and prayers

    • 1
Jan 31, 2019
2and20:

Schultz can easily take away a lot of voters from Trump's voter base as well.

Imagine sincerely believing this.

    • 3
Jan 31, 2019

He would have been a good option a decade ago, before Obama or even before Bush. Now it's not the time any longer. Socially liberal today with SJW in charge of the academia, media and Silicon Valley is a social disaster in the making; the social discourse has been pushed too far against family values, white people, masculinity and heterosexuality. Unfortunately the slippery slope argument that most Evangelicals used and I thought was bs turned out to be true.

Good luck to him anyway, better than most of the candidates Dems will probably put up. I like Tulsi Gabbard though.

    • 1
    • 5
Jan 31, 2019

Whenever I see him my pee pee turns into a Venti

Jan 31, 2019

DOESN'T MATTER NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE.

Have you ever heard of those people who get murdered or end up in the hospital after a sports game because their team won and the other team's fans beat them?
When I think of American voters I think of these irrational people who can't control themselves and vote because they're a Republicans fan or Democrats fan, or they used to be a Democrats fan until Tom Brady left the Democrats for the Republicans so now their a Republicans fan because #XOXOXTOMBRADYFORLIFE.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 31, 2019

Brady4MVP

    • 1
Jan 31, 2019

538 discussed this within the last day or so. I tend to agree. I think there's a good chance someone to the left of where he stands wins, and the only ones who are semi moderate with a chance are Biden and Bloomberg.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-is-howard...

Jan 31, 2019
MMBanker14:

538 discussed this within the last day or so. I tend to agree. I think there's a good chance someone to the left of where he stands wins, and the only ones who are semi moderate with a chance are Biden and Bloomberg.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-is-howard...

That's probably a real point to consider. Chances are, the populist votes a liberal like Kamala/Warren/Bernie in, while the rest of us seek something different. We get a Green New Deal and America is fully thrusted into socialism. Or that's on hold, temporarily, as Trump gets a second term. This is probably the unfortunate reality.

    • 2
Jan 31, 2019
iBankedUp:

We get a Green New Deal and America is fully thrusted into socialism.

you guys seriously live on a different planet

    • 2
    • 1
Jan 31, 2019

I think Biden would have a very good chance, but otherwise agree it'd most likely be someone like Kamala or Cory Booker or even Beto (although less likely) vs Trump. Disastrous.

Jan 31, 2019

Still prefer Trump, but I would take Schultz over any of the liberal nut jobs anyday - god help us if Warren, Bernie, Kamala, etc gets elected.

That said, I could live if Biden won. He's reasonable

IMO if Schultz doesn't run and the Dem nominee is one of the aforementioned nut jobs, Trump wins easy.

If Biden wins the Dem nomination, he is 100% going to beat Trump.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2019

So I am not big on politics and really have no preference to a party. I am a centrist myself. However, I do laugh at the Democratic party. They don't want Howard to run because they think it will take away votes from Democrats. If this is what they are scared of, then they should honestly blame themselves. It means their policies and views are so shitty that their own party collapses.

Howard may or may not ensure a Trump win. If he can reach out to the moderate republicans and side with them on major policy such as tax cuts and less regulation, he can seriously be a real threat. Our only options for candidates right now are Trump, who will reck the economy to get something stupid or people like Warren and Kamala who will destroy through policies that do not make sense for this country. If Kamala or Warren get the nomination I think Trump could still win. In fact, now more than ever all we have is the extreme right and extreme left. We actually need someone in the middle. Either this or we need someone with basic common sense like Biden, who would most likely win it all.

    • 7
Jan 31, 2019
TeddyTheBear:

So I am not big on politics and really have no preference to a party. I am a centrist myself. However, I do laugh at the Democratic party. They don't want Howard to run because they think it will take away votes from Democrats. If this is what they are scared of, then they should honestly blame themselves. It means their policies and views are so shitty that their own party collapses.

Howard may or may not ensure a Trump win. If he can reach out to the moderate republicans and side with them on major policy such as tax cuts and less regulation, he can seriously be a real threat. Our only options for candidates right now are Trump, who will reck the economy to get something stupid or people like Warren and Kamala who will destroy through policies that do not make sense for this country. If Kamala or Warren get the nomination I think Trump could still win. In fact, now more than ever all we have is the extreme right and extreme left. We actually need someone in the middle. Either this or we need someone with basic common sense like Biden, who would most likely win it all.

This is why I could live with Biden/Schultz even though I'm a Republican. I realize Trump gets out of hand quite a bit.

    • 2
Feb 1, 2019
teddythebear:

So I am not big on politics and really have no preference to a party. I am a centrist myself. However, I do laugh at the Democratic party. They don't want Howard to run because they think it will take away votes from Democrats. If this is what they are scared of, then they should honestly blame themselves. It means their policies and views are so shitty that their own party collapses.

Howard may or may not ensure a Trump win. If he can reach out to the moderate republicans and side with them on major policy such as tax cuts and less regulation, he can seriously be a real threat. Our only options for candidates right now are Trump, who will reck the economy to get something stupid or people like Warren and Kamala who will destroy through policies that do not make sense for this country. If Kamala or Warren get the nomination I think Trump could still win. In fact, now more than ever all we have is the extreme right and extreme left. We actually need someone in the middle. Either this or we need someone with basic common sense like Biden, who would most likely win it all.

What democrats seem to fail to realize about American ideas, is that we come together, but we come together as individuals.

If you're a shitty artist living on cans of beans, you might get laid by the rich guy, and he may pay some of your bills. That's American.

If you are a southerner and you believe in hospitality, you might get robbed by a valueless city slicker from the north, and then he might get caught by the smalltown southern boys and beat to death. That's American.

We are not Europe. We thrive by our differences and don't need a one size fits all solution. It's the reason why the founders came up with the federalist idea and the electoral college and separation of powers and all men are created equal (although, thank God the idea of that has evolved for most of us).

We need American solutions not some dainty, European, we are all white and the same solution. Because, the truth is, that's not American, and never has been.

    • 6
Jan 31, 2019

Bloomberg 2020. Schultz is ok but I don't find him very charismatic.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2019
Rahma:

Bloomberg 2020. Schultz is ok but I don't find him very charismatic.

I would vote for Bloomberg for sure and also Schultz over the major party candidates. However, that is not a good sign for Democrats, since my primary objective would be to vote against Trump. If it's only Trump and a democrat, I will definitely vote for the Democrat.

If I have to choose between a third party and Trump, I will start weighing odds of electability. Not good for Democrats.

    • 3
Jan 31, 2019

Yeah I can see that. I blame this dysfunction on a winner-take-all presidential system.

Feb 1, 2019

To add: I will not vote for Bernie or E. Warren under any circumstance. Sadly, I'd rather have Trump.

Jan 31, 2019

Lol. Being charismatic is no longer an important metric to be president. Remember this...

Trump

    • 1
Jan 31, 2019

A lot of Trump supporters find his personality charming and see his bluster as independent thinking. I'm not sure Schultz has that kind of appeal in any demographic--even among globalists, such as myself.

Feb 1, 2019

Historically speaking it will be hard to beat Trump if the economy is doing well whether Schultz is in a 3rd column on election day or not.

There have only been 5 president incumbents who have not been re-elected.
In recent years Ford lost to Carter because Ford became president by default of Nixon's resignation. He did not have the people behind him. Carter lost to Reagan because of stagflation and George HW lost to Clinton due to an independent moderate (Perot) similar to Schultz in some ways who happened to do well in garnering middle/right votes and at this point a republican had been in office for 12 years.

Realistically the election will come down to a demographic and economic pairing not largely represented on WSO. Trolls aside, if you are here you are probably highly educated and well compensated compared to the general populace (tbh, to be a really effective troll you actually have to be pretty smart lol). Millennials are now the largest demographic in the US and as per usual the youth tend to be left leaning, how far left will partially depend on the economy. Previous voting patterns with millennials have been attributed to their "slow to start" situation due to the recession of '08. It will come down to their migration habits compared to the baby boomers in key states such as Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania. Let's not leave out the rest of the folks in middle America though, the heartland put a lot of faith in Trump in 2016 and he has delivered a strong job market for the average American as promised. Expect the Midwest to be a major battleground.

Feb 1, 2019
Peg Leg:

Historically speaking it will be hard to beat Trump if the economy is doing well whether Schultz is in a 3rd column on election day or not.

There have only been 5 president incumbents who have not been re-elected.
In recent years Ford lost to Carter because Ford became president by default of Nixon's resignation. He did not have the people behind him. Carter lost to Reagan because of stagflation and George HW lost to Clinton due to an independent moderate (Perot) similar to Schultz in some ways who happened to do well in garnering middle/right votes and at this point a republican had been in office for 12 years.

Realistically the election will come down to a demographic and economic pairing not largely represented on WSO. Trolls aside, if you are here you are probably highly educated and well compensated compared to the general populace (tbh, to be a really effective troll you actually have to be pretty smart lol). Millennials are now the largest demographic in the US and as per usual the youth tend to be left leaning, how far left will partially depend on the economy. Previous voting patterns with millennials have been attributed to their "slow to start" situation due to the recession of '08. It will come down to their migration habits compared to the baby boomers in key states such as Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania. Let's not leave out the rest of the folks in middle America though, the heartland put a lot of faith in Trump in 2016 and he has delivered a strong job market for the average American as promised. Expect the Midwest to be a major battleground.

I haven't done this but I think it'd be great to see what the correlation between UMich's consumer sentiment index and election outcomes for incumbents are. Specifically, I would be interested in seeing if there's any correlation to the expectations sub-index.
Anyone want to do a quick excel thingy? I'd ask my analysts but they're probably lurking here and would realize who I am...

    • 3
Feb 1, 2019

I looked over the consumer sentiment data and I see some parallels over the last 30 years. The one that throws a wrench in the presidential incumbent re-elections though is the 2012 election, consumer sentiment while improving was still not good and a clear victory was had.

    • 1
Feb 1, 2019

Serious question - why are you anti-border wall?

Feb 1, 2019
m8:

Serious question - why are you anti-border wall?

1.) a wall across the entire U.S/Mexico border would be extremely costly and environmentally disastrous

2.) There are cheaper and more effective border security alternatives (drones, more border patrol, etc.) that wouldn't be environmentally disastrous

    • 1
Feb 1, 2019

I'm anti-wall in the sense that I think it's a stupid idea. I'm very much in favor of immigration reform in the sense that I think it's bullshit the government pays for services for the undocumented, but anti-wall in the sense that it only solves the issue of people literally sneaking across the border. where's the provision to cover the nearly 50% of undocumented immigrants who got here legally and simply have an expired visa?

I'm also anti-wall in the sense that it's an absolute in the mind of our POTUS. I get the sense he feels a border wall is the ONLY way to solve our immigration problems, rather than being malleable to alternative solutions (like actual reform to the system, rather than building a physical barrier)

border security is fundamental to any sovereign nation. I felt incredibly uneasy driving around the EU and not being greeted by so much as a toll booth passing from country to country. it's no surprise why they have problems with terrorism, but part of me has the feeling that the talking points wall supporters use are overblown. I have a hard time believing that the worst criminals are illegal immigrants. I have a hard time believing that illegal immigrants are taking so many jobs from americans that it puts us a step back, and finally, I have a hard time focusing so much attention on what I believe is a fringe issue when we should really be focusing on shit that moves the needle: entitlement reform, term limits, getting rid of lobbyists, energy policy, our national debt, and investing in science.

so in short, yes it's an issue about which I care, and I'm open to persuasion if shown some data (because the facts don't care how I feel), but I've yet to been shown why this should be the #1 issue for the republican party today.

    • 2
Feb 1, 2019

"Where's the provision to cover the nearly 50% of undocumented immigrants who got here legally and simply have an expired visa?"

Trump has made an effort to get rid of "sanctuary" cities, but has faced stiff opposition from Democrat-led cities. That's how you get rid of undocumented immigrants. So the wall isn't the only way he's approaching it.

Feb 1, 2019

Ok fair enough - but you're (and I realize my original question wasn't directed at you) generally for securing the border.

I just have a hard time understanding how someone can be against securing our border, whether it be via a wall or some over enhanced security measure. I'd be interested to hear arguments against it.

Feb 1, 2019
Comment
    • 2
Feb 1, 2019
Feb 10, 2019
Feb 13, 2019
Comment