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

thebrofessor's picture
thebrofessor - Certified Professional
Rank: The Pro | banana points 25,562

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...

Financial Modeling Course

  • Get An Edge For Your Interviews & Finance Career
  • The Best (and Most Affordable) Financial Modeling Self-study Courses.
  • WSO Members receive a 15% discount

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
    • 18
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.

    • 3
    • 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.

    • 10
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.

Feb 1, 2019

Yeah man, those Obama wonder years really did a lot for the minority community. All those government programs aimed at helping the poor really lifted them out of poverty. They work really well in other countries too. Like in Venezuela, every ones super rich because the government enacts these very useful welfare policies.

They're not as effective here in the states because of those damned conservatives!!!

Feb 1, 2019
mbahopeful88:

Yeah man, those Obama wonder years really did a lot for the minority community. All those government programs aimed at helping the poor really lifted them out of poverty. They work really well in other countries too. Like in Venezuela, every ones super rich because the government enacts these very useful welfare policies.

They're not as effective here in the states because of those damned conservatives!!!

If you're going to simply deflect, I have no more reason to "discuss" with you. See below for my responses to your "arguments" (and I use that term very very lightly here).

p.s. and you cite ironically cite Obama... https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/29/obamacare-helps-sa...
"The Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare, though, can help, the study shows: Families with access to subsidized health coverage through the ACA were 25 percent less likely to miss rent or mortgage payments than those without.

Since being delinquent on payments can lead to eviction or foreclosure, having health care coverage lessens the chance that you end up homeless, Emily Gallagher, lead author of the study, an assistant professor of finance at the University of Colorado, Boulder, tells CNBC Make It."

Isn't this the legislation that Republicans have gutted and tried to repeal? I'll await your cognitive dissonance and Yahoo! comments level response, bro.

    • 1
    • 1
Feb 1, 2019

Okay, so now you've provided some benefits. Can you think of any costs? Can you then weigh the costs with the benefits and conduct a rational analysis? Or are you simply interested in cherry picking certain benefits that support your bias?

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.

    • 2
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
Jan 31, 2019

completely agree - if we're judging by PLATFORM, the poor should only ever vote democrat. however, if you look at RESULTS, the waters get muddier.

I've only ever been lower middle class (at worst), so I can't speak for the poor. I'm just looking at the data, and it seems to me poverty rate is a more complicated problem than the elephants and the donkeys.

Feb 12, 2019

Republicans just proposed socialist spending for poor to increase from $590 to $686.1 billion.

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 1, 2019
BobTheBaker:

Extreme socialism provides catastrophe (in that sense, I can't support AOC, Sanders and the like)

Ok, Ok, you're not totally insane. But this is the way your party is headed. Prepare to become a Republican in about a decade if for no other reason than to defend against complete insanity.

BobTheBaker:

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.

I just don't understand what you're saying here. Who is defunding Medicaid and Medicare? Medicare costs are so out of control that there is an unfunded liability somewhere as high as $100 trillion. Not only has Medicare not been defunded, its benefits have expanded far beyond what can actually be paid for.

BobTheBaker:

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.

I mean, ok. Republicans support social welfare programs; they just don't think the gov't welfare programs--federal programs in particular--are the most effective way to finance and provide welfare benefits. The American federal bureaucracy is utterly incompetent. I don't see how any intelligent adult could actually believe that a centralized federal bureaucracy is the best way to deliver social welfare programs to a continental nation of 330 million diverse people.

BobTheBaker:

Meanwhile, we pour money into the military.

Well, guys like Donald Trump tell NATO allies to do their part and finance their own defense and the Democrats blow a gasket, accusing Trump of being a Russian plant. I honestly don't even know what the Democrats believe any more on national security. The Dem national security position is entirely incoherent.

BobTheBaker:

There is also no evidence that trickle-down economics actually works (in fact it's bullshit).

"Trickle-down-economics" is a pejorative used by the Democrats to explain something they don't understand. There is immense evidence that supply-side economics is effective (though imperfect) and there is virtually no evidence that Keynesian economics is effective unless there is a world war.

BobTheBaker:

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.

There are 3 industries in the U.S. that are a complete mess, and all 3 of them have been destroyed by gov't interference. Health care, housing, and higher education costs are all out of control and rising because the gov't refuses to let the free market operate largely unfettered. Virtually every other industry and commodity have enjoyed inflation-adjusted price declines except these three gov't-manipulated industries. Maybe more gov't isn't the answer--maybe it's more freedom.

Feb 10, 2019

Capitalism gets people out of poverty

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:
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?

He'd depress the Dem vote, Republicans would stick with Trump. You just outlined exactly what the problem with him running as an independent is.

    • 2
    • 1
Jan 30, 2019

I've only ever voted republican (except Trump) and I know for a fact schultz could steal some Rep votes (and I'm in the south). who knows if it's enough, but there were plenty of "not her" trump supporters in 2016 who are tired of his bullshit.

    • 4
    • 2
Jan 30, 2019

People are underestimating how poorly this shutdown hurt Trump's image. Even some of his die hard dick-riders I know got pissed off at his "seeming inability to stop those damn Democrats" in regards to the wall. I personally like the idea of Schultz running, he does seem to tick most of my boxes. With the right kind of money behind him and the chance to get onto a major debate stage as a candidate, I think he'd be able to pull enough of the Democrats out from under their rock and vote, as well as enough disenfranchised Republicans to counter the political extremists at both ends.

    • 6
Jan 31, 2019
thebrofessor:

I've only ever voted republican (except Trump) and I know for a fact schultz could steal some Rep votes (and I'm in the south). who knows if it's enough, but there were plenty of "not her" trump supporters in 2016 who are tired of his bullshit.

I'm sorry man but this is optimistic. I'll have to look at hard data but when it comes out I'd bet he takes a far larger share of democrats than he does republicans.

Jan 31, 2019
thebrofessor:

I've only ever voted republican (except Trump) and I know for a fact schultz could steal some Rep votes (and I'm in the south). who knows if it's enough, but there were plenty of "not her" trump supporters in 2016 who are tired of his bullshit.

Yeah my Dad's a lifetime republican and he's not a fan of Trump for the most part. He would consider going for a guy like Schultz

Edit: Also guys, remember that Trump had a < 10% chance of winning on election day. Schultz could definitely have a shot if he raises enough money. I could totally see a guy like Cuban throwing his weight behind Schultz over Trump or a Warren/Bernie.

If Biden is the nominee, then I think the door is shut for Schultz.

Jan 30, 2019

I would not call Trump supporters moderates at this point. He has had an a barely moving high 30's low 40's approval rating since he became president. If you approve of Trump when he gets his intelligence briefings from Fox and Friends I don't think you care about policy very much.

    • 1
    • 3
Jan 30, 2019
Forex Swings:

I would not call Trump supporters moderates at this point. He has had an a barely moving high 30's low 40's approval rating since he became president. If you approve of Trump when he gets his intelligence briefings from Fox and Friends I don't think you care about policy very much.

When Trump was elected, there was and still is talk about a class of highly educated, white voters, that wanted to see things shaken up, and some in this class were considered to have voted for Obama's message of change. I'm not talking about the nut jobs or the hardcore republicans.

Voters like middle class, suburban mothers, college educated women, some of the black males/white males, class of people. It's probably a small bloc within the people who voted for Trump, but I wouldn't consider him the hardcore base.

Trump is a fraud. If that isn't exposed to some of these people I mentioned by now, then, you're right, they won't switch. But, I'm sure these people are questioning his moves, which is why his approval rating won't go up. He definitely, also, disenfranchised women with the Kavanuagh show.

    • 2
    • 2
Jan 31, 2019
Forex Swings:

If you approve of Trump when he gets his intelligence briefings from Fox and Friends I don't think you care about policy very much.

Quite frankly CNN/MSNBC are the exact same as Fox tbh (as far as bias goes), you're in denial if you think Fox is the only extreme network.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2019
Forex Swings:

I would not call Trump supporters moderates at this point. He has had an a barely moving high 30's low 40's approval rating since he became president. If you approve of Trump when he gets his intelligence briefings from Fox and Friends I don't think you care about policy very much.

Yeah, yeah, Trump's an extremist, and the 70% marginal income tax, nationalized and socialized health care, open borders, $45 trillion in new spending, sex changes paid for by the U.S. military, banning of personal cars, $100 billion in slavery reparations, pro-Maduro, pro-Israel boycott, abortion-at-40 weeks, ban all semi-automatic guns, Ruth Bader Ginsburg Democrats are just the moderates that the nation needs.

Jan 30, 2019
iBankedUp:

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?

No, I completely agree that some moderates and center left individuals will go for him. I don't have the polling in front of me, if it even exists yet, but I would imagine he could win 1-2 states and come in second on a lot of them.

I maintain that he has no way of winning though - only acting as a spoiler.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2019

Warren running with Bernie.Howard Schultz (former SBUX CEO) Running in 2020 - Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative

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
Learn More

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

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.

RIP LEHMAN
RIP MONACOMONKEY
RIP THEACCOUNTING MAJOR

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.

excel is my canvas, and data is my paint - new york - brunch conesseiour - atheist - centrist - ENFP - TCU alum

    • 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.

RIP LEHMAN
RIP MONACOMONKEY
RIP THEACCOUNTING MAJOR

    • 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 30, 2019

Comes out tasting microwaved

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
Feb 1, 2019

At this point people would probably complain.

Feb 1, 2019

They deliberately over-roast their coffee so it tastes better in all their milky sugar-packed drinks.

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: $7,286
Financial instruments and other inventory positions owned: $313,129

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

LOL, nailed it. Socialism is the new fear-mongering buzzword for any policy left of center, not to be outdone by "massive caravan of brown people incoming!!" anytime Trump has a news cycle he wants to bury.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 2
    • 1
Jan 31, 2019

you need to actually read it. It's marketed/presented as just investment in renewable energy sources, but it goes far past that. Green New Deal

The clear goal behind this thing is to transform the economy into socialism.

    • 3
Jan 31, 2019
iBankedUp:

you need to actually read it. It's marketed/presented as just investment in renewable energy sources, but it goes far past that. Green New Deal

The clear goal behind this thing is to transform the economy into socialism.

It's actually worse than the original socialism, so kudos for somehow managing to make it even more unnecessarily complex.

If RBG dies, the Supreme Court is going to have fun striking it down way more than the first New Deal.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2019
iBankedUp:

The clear goal behind this thing is to transform the economy into socialism.

What is the thought process that led you to that conclusion? I read the document and the plan seems well intentioned but poorly informed. I see an expansion of the welfare state and even the idea of equity stakes (which is in the direction of socialism). But I don't see how you can claim that this is going to transform the economy into socialism.

There's nothing about abolishing private property, enforcing co-op type of ownership structures, only funding worker-owned orgs, etc.

    • 1
Jan 31, 2019
Rahma:
iBankedUp:

The clear goal behind this thing is to transform the economy into socialism.

What is the thought process that led you to that conclusion? I read the document and the plan seems well intentioned but poorly informed. I see an expansion of the welfare state and even the idea of equity stakes (which is in the direction of socialism). But I don't see how you can claim that this is going to transform the economy into socialism.

There's nothing about abolishing private property, enforcing co-op type of ownership structures, only funding worker-owned orgs, etc.

Public investment cos for 100% of a major public utility (granted public investment may not end up being 100%, but the goal is to steer the utility into a specially designated government economic project, just short of nationalizing the industry). Job guarantees and enforcement of what type of jobs. The stretch into all aspects of life, including social areas. This just stops short of banning private property, but it is expected to be paid for by essentially capturing 70%, which is a near majority, of ownership's rights (taxes) as well as additional taxes. But this is a good way to ease in socialism to continue onto the whole sphere, like the single payer health system.

    • 4
Feb 1, 2019

Public investment can be warranted if it serves some long term goal. For example, developing the space program has helped spur innovation and technology in the private sector (and is now shifting into the private sectors hands). Similarly, most governments owned and ran postal services which eventually led to privately run competitors.

To me, green energy seems like a viable public investment since it addresses a few issues:
- a new electric grid would cost an exorbitant amount that the private market has not been willing to take on
- reducing and managing green house emissions can dramatically improve the quality of life to citizens (you don't want to live in Beijing or LA during the 70-80s)

There are some bad ideas too, such as guaranteeing a job, and such. But no one takes a bill at face value, lol. You should know better.

In any case, it's not /that/ crazy considering we already have a person in the White House who is doing variations of these things. For example, farm subsidies are de facto job guarantees. Asking China to respect US IP law is a form of collectivism. Slapping tariffs on trade is a tax.

A short sighted focus on personal interests in not a great way to run a government, and I think both people in the right and left can agree with me on that. I know that this is just an online forum, but I think we can still aim to engage in a higher level of debate.

    • 4
Feb 1, 2019
Rahma:

Public investment can be warranted if it serves some long term goal. For example, developing the space program has helped spur innovation and technology in the private sector (and is now shifting into the private sectors hands). Similarly, most governments owned and ran postal services which eventually led to privately run competitors.

To me, green energy seems like a viable public investment since it addresses a few issues:
- a new electric grid would cost an exorbitant amount that the private market has not been willing to take on
- reducing and managing green house emissions can dramatically improve the quality of life to citizens (you don't want to live in Beijing or LA during the 70-80s)

I mean, I want to make money on this too.

Rahma:

There are some bad ideas too, such as guaranteeing a job, and such. But no one takes a bill at face value, lol. You should know better.

In any case, it's not /that/ crazy considering we already have a person in the White House who is doing variations of these things. For example, farm subsidies are de facto job guarantees. Asking China to respect US IP law is a form of collectivism. Slapping tariffs on trade is a tax.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think AOC as the face of this thing says a lot about where this is headed. Take her away from it, and it looks like something different. Obama planned something similar in his stimulus package to regulate emissions try to tackle climate change. So it isn't like this is an extension of that. The goal in this plan is to go beyond that as the previous plan wasn't enough.

More importantly is the timeline. 10 years to a 100% goal, where taxing all the billionaires isn't even enough, clearly is about nearly nationalizing the industry. 10 years is nothing. 10 years with a goal unimaginable before is an extreme case. The broad reach that allows this to extend into multiple spheres of the economy, leaves way too much ambiguity of where the limits are in reaching that goal.

Context is important. We need a moderate approach to revolutionizing this industry. I'm all for that. I'm not for a socialist expanding government control. Energy companies are behind the idea of reducing carbon emissions, where are they in coming up with this plan? I think the government needs to take leadership, but this is all unilateral.

    • 3
Feb 1, 2019

Thank you for the thoughtful response. Based on your comments, though, I think that the problem is in the messenger. AOC is clearly riling up conservatives in probably the same way Trump has hit the left. I don't think she will be very effective or successful at passing legislation. She's the Ted Cruz of the Democratic Party.

Going back to whether it is feasible-- good points, and I agree that a 10 year time frame is far too aggressive. At the same time, having an ambitious time table is not a sufficient reason to reject an idea outright. It just means that the stated goals are less likely to occur.

In regards to socialism, again, I'm not seeing a call to get rid of the market mechanism for pricing or taking away property rights. In fact, I do not even see this as a slippery slope (which is a logical fallacy anyway), because it's targeted to one sector and there is precedent (the new deal, other major public works projects, getting a man to the moon, etc.). Also, quick comment on the left-- during the 2018 midterms, moderate Democrats outperformed the Bernie camp.

And while I think that Bernie & co are unreasonable and uninformed, I'd actually prefer to live in a country more similar to Sweden (high tax, high benefits) than Somalia (low tax, low benefit, right wing nationalism). In fact, I think that's true for most people here, despite their ideological preference. The major policy initiatives the "crazy liberals" are calling for (free public college education, healthcare, infrastructure) are widely featured in the developed world. And those very things impact productivity, capital, and population growth which are the determinants of long-run economic growth. I agree that the rhetoric the left has adopted (anti-capitalist, soaking the rich, etc.) are dumb and unproductive, and I believe that conservative voices and approaches to these long-run issues are needed-- but the goals are the same. The only people that are really strange are the alt-right (closed society) and anarchists (closed economy). But the best way to kill bad ideologies is through sunlight & the marketplace of ideas.

Tl;dr where is our 100 year plan?!

    • 3
Jan 31, 2019
Rahma:
iBankedUp:

The clear goal behind this thing is to transform the economy into socialism.

What is the thought process that led you to that conclusion? I read the document and the plan seems well intentioned but poorly informed. I see an expansion of the welfare state and even the idea of equity stakes (which is in the direction of socialism). But I don't see how you can claim that this is going to transform the economy into socialism.

There's nothing about abolishing private property, enforcing co-op type of ownership structures, only funding worker-owned orgs, etc.

You're actually right. It's not really socialism. The Green New Deal and the Accountable Capitalism Act (Elizabeth Warren's deal) and sister proposals are actually much closer to fascism, which is an alternative leftist economic philosophy. Other than socializing 1/5 of the U.S. economy--health care--and then finishing off socializing higher education, these other proposals look more like "communist" China or fascist Italy: state direction of the economy. For developing countries, fascism may make sense. For an advanced economy in a constant state of change, I can't think of a more retrograde economic system than what the Democrats have put forth other than full-on socialism a la Venezuela.

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

that's good to hear, maybe this could be something that has escaped politicians...compromise?

DJT - I WANT A WALL
Nance - OK donnie, we know you want a wall, what about the sanctuary city thing? we'll scrap that and start upholding more of the existing laws in place
DJT - you have my attention
Chuck - but you gotta stop calling me cryin chuck
DJT - no promises
Nance - yeah, that ain't happenin. anyway, what about this wall, it polls badly, it's suicide for all but maybe 30% of your base
DJT - yeah, maybe u rite. can we still say "physical barrier?" I made a campaign promise, I have to keep it
Nance - well yeah, that was in the first proposal we sent, we're game. but you HAVE to do something about dreamers and refugees
DJT - OK, so tougher enforcement of expired visas, no wall, just physical barrier, dreamers and refugees are good to go. we have a deal
chuck - starts to sob
Nance - don't tempt him
DJT - get yourself together chuck, let's make a deal

    • 3
Feb 1, 2019

Done, I'd support that.

Feb 11, 2019
thebrofessor:

that's good to hear, maybe this could be something that has escaped politicians...compromise?

DJT - I WANT A WALL
Nance - OK donnie, we know you want a wall, what about the sanctuary city thing? we'll scrap that and start upholding more of the existing laws in place
DJT - you have my attention
Chuck - but you gotta stop calling me cryin chuck
DJT - no promises
Nance - yeah, that ain't happenin. anyway, what about this wall, it polls badly, it's suicide for all but maybe 30% of your base
DJT - yeah, maybe u rite. can we still say "physical barrier?" I made a campaign promise, I have to keep it
Nance - well yeah, that was in the first proposal we sent, we're game. but you HAVE to do something about dreamers and refugees
DJT - OK, so tougher enforcement of expired visas, no wall, just physical barrier, dreamers and refugees are good to go. we have a deal
chuck - starts to sob
Nance - don't tempt him
DJT - get yourself together chuck, let's make a deal

Support for the wall is actually pretty high among those who voted Trump
aads

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

Well, it depends on what you mean by "securing the border."

Personally, I believe that the US population growth has become precariously low, and that the US gov't should incentivize more people to immigrate to the US. I'm also more for an "open" border in the sense that the flow of goods, labor, and capital should be relatively free (while still ensuring some form of security).

Moving on to security, I believe that security is necessary. Specifically, we should secure borders and ports of entry from illicit activities, weapons, foreign armies, and non-state militant actors.

However, a wall is not an effective method of "securing" geography and hasn't been for at least a few hundred years. Today, the vast majority of people enter the country through official ports of entry. So, while it makes sense to monitor our border with other countries, we should do so with technology and tools that actually make sense.

The biggest issues I hear on the other side about borders relates to:
- illegal immigration (IMO, moot point; we need more labor)
- drug trafficking (most drugs enter the US through legal ports of entry)
- terrorists (plain scare tactics)

Walls don't address evasive approaches to border crossing--the people who cross over land are poor people seeking a better life. So the wall ends up being a very costly expenditure that doesn't actually alleviate the issues laid out by those asking for it.

Ultimately, the wall then seems to serve as some sort of metaphor. And as someone who believes in the ideals of capitalism and liberty-- I cannot support such a metaphor.

    • 2
Feb 1, 2019

"illegal immigration (IMO, moot point; we need more labor)"

I agree on incentives to drive immigrants to the U.S, but it has to be done legally - its far from a moot point, in my opinion. We need the labor, but it can't be done illegally.

"Walls don't address evasive approaches to border crossing--the people who cross over land are poor people seeking a better life. "

The standing of the person doesn't matter and shouldn't be a reason to discount the issue, it still must be done legally. Why should someone from Central America get preference over someone from Africa or Europe to come here, just by way of living closer and having the ability to "walk-in".

"And as someone who believes in the ideals of capitalism and liberty-- I cannot support such a metaphor."

Unless your ideal of capitalism is built on illegal labor, I don't follow how having a wall infringes on someone's pursuit of capitalism and liberty.

    • 1
Feb 6, 2019
m8:

I agree on incentives to drive immigrants to the U.S, but it has to be done legally - its far from a moot point, in my opinion. We need the labor, but it can't be done illegally.

Applying as a refugee for asylum is a legal form of immigration.

The standing of the person doesn't matter and shouldn't be a reason to discount the issue, it still must be done legally. Why should someone from Central America get preference over someone from Africa or Europe to come here, just by way of living closer and having the ability to "walk-in".

I don't like this argument for a few reasons. I think we should change our immigration system. However, illegal immigration has actually fallen over the past decade, and so the strength of that argument is weak. Additionally, much fuss is being made about the "caravan" and such, which are actually legal (refugees may apply for asylum).

I think I would be more sympathetic to the message of "illegals are bad" if immigrants themselves weren't being vilified. This makes me suspect that "illegals are bad" is just a PC way of saying "others are bad"...

Unless your ideal of capitalism is built on illegal labor, I don't follow how having a wall infringes on someone's pursuit of capitalism and liberty.

A wall is a metaphor of exclusivity. It won't actually keep "illegals" out, but it does signal to the rotw that the US has taken a step backward.

    • 3
    • 2
Feb 6, 2019
Rahma:

Applying as a refugee for asylum is a legal form of immigration.

There is an orderly, legal process for applying for asylum at ports of entry. A caravan storming the border is not a legal form of immigration or asylum seeking. Besides, if they were actually seeking asylum, why aren't they seeking it in Mexico?

Rahma:

I don't like this argument for a few reasons. I think we should change our immigration system. However, illegal immigration has actually fallen over the past decade, and so the strength of that argument is weak. Additionally, much fuss is being made about the "caravan" and such, which are actually legal (refugees may apply for asylum).

No, the caravan is not legal, as already explained. And I don't see how falling illegal immigration numbers is a justification for having a special relationship with Central American illegals over any other illegals.

Rahma:

I think I would be more sympathetic to the message of "illegals are bad" if immigrants themselves weren't being vilified. This makes me suspect that "illegals are bad" is just a PC way of saying "others are bad"...

This is pseudo-intellectual nonsense.

Rahma:

A wall is a metaphor of exclusivity. It won't actually keep "illegals" out, but it does signal to the rotw that the US has taken a step backward.

It's a metaphor for the rule of law. Living in a nation governed by the rule of law is indirectly why people seek out life in the United States.

And walls and fencing are all over the U.S. southern border. They actually work fairly well where they are placed, and those fences and walls were apparently not immoral until Donald Trump became president.

Feb 6, 2019

I regret to inform you that you don't know what you're talking about. The caravan isn't heading into unfenced sections of our border, but to ports of entry along the US-Mexican border. How can the caravan be declared illegal when it 1- hasn't crossed the border illegally, 2- is attempting to apply for asylum at ports of entry?

Link: https://cis.org/Migrant-Caravan-Map
Regarding choosing the US-- what's the percentage of total refugees from central america seeking asylum to the US? These caravans (5-10k people) represent less than 5% of the total number of Central Americans fleeing their countries in 2017.

Link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/22/cent...

It's a metaphor for the rule of law. Living in a nation governed by the rule of law is indirectly why people seek out life in the United States.

You're terribly misinformed. Most migration was due to economic opportunity or freedom from persecution.

Independent courts is our metaphor for "rule of law", lol. Even popular talking heads on the "extra"-right (not quite far, but close) who advocate for the wall, like Tucker Carlson, have made repeated comments vilifying immigration--which is clearly the motivating factor behind the wall (dislike of others).

Link: https://thehill.com/media/421809-tucker-carlson-de...

    • 3
    • 1
Feb 7, 2019

There's so much wrong here to unpack that I don't even know where to begin. You posting a bunch of links that aren't particularly related to your case doesn't bolster your position. But if you want to play the link game, here we go anyway.

Rahma:

I regret to inform you that you don't know what you're talking about. The caravan isn't heading into unfenced sections of our border, but to ports of entry along the US-Mexican border. How can the caravan be declared illegal when it 1- hasn't crossed the border illegally, 2- is attempting to apply for asylum at ports of entry?

Some are heading to ports of entry and some are bum rushing the border.

There are specific ports of entry where you may peacefully show up to apply for asylum. Bum rushing the border is not part of the legal, orderly process.

https://www.cbp.gov/contact/ports/tx
You can also seek refugee status at a U.S. embassy (e.g. in Honduras or Nicaragua):

https://it.usembassy.gov/embassy-consulates/rome/s...

Rahma:

Regarding choosing the US-- what's the percentage of total refugees from central america seeking asylum to the US? These caravans (5-10k people) represent less than 5% of the total number of Central Americans fleeing their countries in 2017.

In what way does this bolster your position? If anything, this is proof that non-Mexican Central Americans do not require the United States to seek asylum.

Rahma:

You're terribly misinformed. Most migration was due to economic opportunity or freedom from persecution.

Haha, Wow.

1) I clearly stated that the rule of law is the INDIRECT reason that immigrants seek out the United States. The reason it is the INDIRECT reason people seek out the United States is because the rule of law is fundamentally why the United States is an economic powerhouse. It is the foundation upon which the entire economy rests. Without the rule of law we are Honduras or Venezuela.

2) You're fully aware that these are not refugees or legit asylum seekers by your own words; they are economic migrants. There are rules for what the U.S. recognizes as proper asylum seekers, and economic migration is not among the reasons you may seek asylum in the U.S.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United...
Here are caravan members admitting they are economic migrants:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2018/10/20/migran...
3) There is a principle in the international community that asylum seekers (those fleeing persecution or fleeing war zones) seek out the first nation where, in lay terms, they are safe and that will take them in. If Hondurans, for example, are really fleeing persecution in Honduras, they can (and should) seek asylum in Mexico and Mexico can (and should) accept them.

https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/...

Rahma:

Independent courts is our metaphor for "rule of law", lol.

Independent courts don't enforce laws unilaterally. Did you ever take a U.S. civics class? The executive branch is empowered to enforce laws enacted by the legislative branch. The U.S. President is the nation's chief law enforcement officer. My God...

Rahma:

Even popular talking heads on the "extra"-right (not quite far, but close) who advocate for the wall, like Tucker Carlson, have made repeated comments vilifying immigration--which is clearly the motivating factor behind the wall (dislike of others).

Ok? Thanks for the link? Tucker Carlson also villifies market capitalism. Tucker Carlson speaks for Tucker Carlson.

Feb 7, 2019
real_Skankhunt42:

Some are heading to ports of entry and some are bum rushing the border.

In the video you posted, migrants in Tijuana tried to rush the border crossing, after protesting a Mexican police blockade designed to stop them from reaching the crossing itself. The issue here is not that these people do not want to legally apply for asylum, the issue is that before they can even apply, the President decided to use them as a pawn in the midterms, and increased border security in an attempt to limit their ability to apply for asylum. This is actually against the rule of law, and courts have fought against this.

Link: http://fortune.com/2018/12/21/supreme-court-trump-...

In what way does this bolster your position? If anything, this is proof that non-Mexican Central Americans do not require the United States to seek asylum.

Why shouldn't Central Americans, or any one, not apply for asylum in the US? T

1) I clearly stated that the rule of law is the INDIRECT reason that immigrants seek out the United States. The reason it is the INDIRECT reason people seek out the United States is because the rule of law is fundamentally why the United States is an economic powerhouse.

The early colonies or even 1900s were hardly an example of rule of law. You had the Wild West, Civil War, war with Mexico, etc.-- domestic disputes, yet wave after wave of people immigrated, such as the Chinese to find gold and build railroads, Irish, etc. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

2) You're fully aware that these are not refugees by your own words; they are economic migrants.

What? I said no such thing. I said people have historically migrated to the US for two primary reasons-- for economic opportunity or freedom from persecution. Central American refugees are clearly in the latter camp. Don't be silly.

There are rules for what the U.S. recognizes as proper asylum seekers, and economic migration is not among the reasons you may seek asylum in the U.S.

Sure, so let them apply and see what the courts have to say. I'm not commenting on each individual application.

There is a principle in the international community that asylum seekers (those fleeing persecution or fleeing war zones) seek out the first nation where, in lay terms, they are safe and that will take them in. If Hondurans, for example, are really fleeing persecution in Honduras, they can (and should) seek asylum in Mexico and Mexico can (and should) accept them.

I provided the statistics, in the previous post, to show that the vast majority of Central American refugees are not applying for Asylum in the US and are not part of the caravan. The percentage of those involved in the caravan is less than 5%.

In short, the caravan isn't "illegal", and a wall would be useless (they're headed towards a port of entry).

Independent courts don't enforce laws unilaterally, genius. Did you ever take a U.S. civics class? The executive branch is empowered to enforce laws enacted by the legislative branch. My God...

I'm not sure you understood my sentence. chuckle

Ok? Thanks for the link? Tucker Carlson also villifies market capitalism. Tucker Carlson speaks for Tucker Carlson.

So you're saying that you are a better representation and more influential of a thinker on the extra-right than Tucker? Perhaps your views are more moderate and intelligent--but that's you. Tucker has the ratings and views to show that a big portion of Trump supporters listen and approve of his opinions.

    • 4
Feb 7, 2019
Feb 7, 2019
Feb 7, 2019
Feb 7, 2019
Feb 10, 2019
Feb 13, 2019