The Atlantic: How Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration

[RINO Tom]

Very good article, thanks for posting.  I won't tell a liberal what to think, but I think immigration coming to the forefront over the past 5-6 years especially has really shown who's who in the "liberal" side of the spectrum in America.  Some Democrats care a lot more about not being the type of person that would "oppose (illegal) immigration" rather than being the type of person that would vote for what's best for the most vulnerable Americans ... the latter has usually more often defined a liberal in American politics.

[RINO Tom]

Very good article, thanks for posting.  I won't tell a liberal what to think, but I think immigration coming to the forefront over the past 5-6 years especially has really shown who's who in the "liberal" side of the spectrum in America.  Some Democrats care a lot more about not being the type of person that would "oppose (illegal) immigration" rather than being the type of person that would vote for what's best for the most vulnerable Americans ... the latter has usually more often defined a liberal in American politics.

Americans is the key word. There is nothing that is not liberal or progressive about supporting immigration policy that protects vulnerable Americans, not Hondurans or Syrians.

I meant to convey that if I didn't.

[RINO Tom]

Immigrants are people too, throwing them under the bus because muh americans is disgusting and unforgivable.

Oh please, spare me the "throwing them under the bus" garbage. Their own countries can take care of them, it's not our responsibility. We have to take care of our own citizens first, then if there is anything left over we can give aid to foreign countries. Why is it that you guys always seem to care more about the welfare of foreigners than your own countrymen? It's that perception of your priorities that cost you an easily winnable election, and gives greater credence to the idea that you only care about importing future voters.

I will believe someone talking about "taking care of our own citizens first" when they're willing to stop the predatory financial sector, the destructive corporations, the abusive billionaires and the captive government. If you ignore these while complaining about immigration, you're focusing on hangnails while you bleed to death internally. (And I truly don't know where you stand on any of this.)

I am left leaning on the economy. I wanted Obama to break up the banks when we had the chance back in 2009. I wanted tougher regulations on CDS and other financial instruments that brought us to the brink of ruin back then. I want higher taxes on the wealthy and universal healthcare by expanding Medicare and Medicaid, not the piece of crap Obamacare that was a giveaway to private insurers. I want the debt ceiling to be eliminated so it can't be used as a hostage to cut spending programs that were already authorized by previous Congresses. I want tougher rules on campaign donations, and a constitutional amendment to limit wealthy people and corporations from flooding the airwaves with campaign commercials for their crony candidates.

But before you do any of that you need to gain control over your borders to determine what goods and people get to cross. Democrats had complete control over the government, and they could have nuked the filibuster to pass more progressive legislation, but they didn't do it. They are corporate whores that want to import the 3rd world so their masters get cheap labor, and they can use identity politics to get those new arrivals to become reliable Democratic voters, all while continuing a neoliberal agenda. It's the same playbook the Republicans ran for decades, only theirs was to use religious wedge issues to dupe their base. Trump was just the only chance I saw to shake up that system. Now he's looking more and more like another establishment Republican, so my only hope is the Democrats come around to my side on the issues of immigration and trade, otherwise I'll have no party.

The Democrats will never come around on that issue because their base is now high end and technocratic.

Trump is not going to be the Calvin Coolidge of Republican Populism, he is morel ike the McKinley. McKinley was known for protectionism primarily, but his nomination pushed the party in a direction of being for business and against gov't leading to Presidencies like Coolidge. The first nomination pushing in that direction is going to look at lot more like the traditional nominee then the nominee to come a decade or two later as the that transformation continues.

Hahaha.

Source?

[RINO Tom]

Immigrants are people too, throwing them under the bus because muh americans is disgusting and unforgivable.

Oh please, spare me the "throwing them under the bus" garbage. Their own countries can take care of them, it's not our responsibility. We have to take care of our own citizens first, then if there is anything left over we can give aid to foreign countries. Why is it that you guys always seem to care more about the welfare of foreigners than your own countrymen? It's that perception of your priorities that cost you an easily winnable election, and gives greater credence to the idea that you only care about importing future voters.

I will believe someone talking about "taking care of our own citizens first" when they're willing to stop the predatory financial sector, the destructive corporations, the abusive billionaires and the captive government. If you ignore these while complaining about immigration, you're focusing on hangnails while you bleed to death internally. (And I truly don't know where you stand on any of this.)

I am left leaning on the economy. I wanted Obama to break up the banks when we had the chance back in 2009. I wanted tougher regulations on CDS and other financial instruments that brought us to the brink of ruin back then. I want higher taxes on the wealthy and universal healthcare by expanding Medicare and Medicaid, not the piece of crap Obamacare that was a giveaway to private insurers. I want the debt ceiling to be eliminated so it can't be used as a hostage to cut spending programs that were already authorized by previous Congresses. I want tougher rules on campaign donations, and a constitutional amendment to limit wealthy people and corporations from flooding the airwaves with campaign commercials for their crony candidates.

But before you do any of that you need to gain control over your borders to determine what goods and people get to cross. Democrats had complete control over the government, and they could have nuked the filibuster to pass more progressive legislation, but they didn't do it. They are corporate whores that want to import the 3rd world so their masters get cheap labor, and they can use identity politics to get those new arrivals to become reliable Democratic voters, all while continuing a neoliberal agenda. It's the same playbook the Republicans ran for decades, only theirs was to use religious wedge issues to dupe their base. Trump was just the only chance I saw to shake up that system. Now he's looking more and more like another establishment Republican, so my only hope is the Democrats come around to my side on the issues of immigration and trade, otherwise I'll have no party.

The Democrats will never come around on that issue because their base is now high end and technocratic.

Trump is not going to be the Calvin Coolidge of Republican Populism, he is morel ike the McKinley. McKinley was known for protectionism primarily, but his nomination pushed the party in a direction of being for business and against gov't leading to Presidencies like Coolidge. The first nomination pushing in that direction is going to look at lot more like the traditional nominee then the nominee to come a decade or two later as the that transformation continues.

Hahaha.

Source?

Perhaps he might mean the base of the donor class or cadre class.

Yes of course.

Money talks after all.

Then the "Republican base" is just as unlikely to do what that guy desires.

[RINO Tom]

I'd venture a guess that the vast majority of people wish poverty didn't exist, but the real issue is how to address it and how much of our resources to devote to fixing it. Given the way the world is, there has to be limits. Further, it's not even like the entire country wants to fix everyone else's problems. Sure, you can disagree with them, but you must strike a balance. You can't just ignore their wishes entirely. It is their country too, and those that wish for America to play a limited role are no small bunch.

It's one thing to deport those here already and another to further lock down the borders and prevent a situation in the future where we have another 10 - 12 million undocumented immigrants. The idea that that we can have some sort of border security, but then say, "well, if they manage to sneak in, they can stay" seems kind of ridiculous. Give the people already here at this current point in time citizenship, and work to prevent a similar situation in the future.

It honestly perplexes me how this isn't the viewpoint of 90% of people.

[RINO Tom]

Don't have much to add, but can we look at the effective top tax rate for those eras?  I'm pretty sure no one was paying 80% on the top whatever % of their money at any point in history.  During the 1950s, I am pretty sure the Eisenhower administration and Republicans in Congress jammed through additional tax loopholes and even lowered the rate, so the whole "let's take the rates back to where they were under Eisenhower!" has always rung hollow to me.