The results really come down to this and corruption turning the religious base against the republicans. The republicans really had nothing to run on but claims that democrats would run out of Iraq.
As a socialist libertarian (socioanarchist? classic conservative? classic liberal? neoliberal? pick your label, they mean different things to everybody and I don't fit in with a specific group) who believes in few government restrictions (on individuals, not corporations) and progressive voluntary non-intrusive programs, I really say the Democrats should adopt low taxes on everybody but the top brackets, proving they aren't going to outlaw guns, less laws on individuals, states' rights, and some other libertarian positions that would leave the republicans with little to campaign on.
They should follow through bigtime on lobbyist reform and open government, to drive that corruption issue.
They could REALLY knock the republicans into political limbo by passing a fair partial birth abortion ban that has liberal exceptions for the health of the mother. How do the republicans campaign against that? Down with maternal health exceptions? Yeah, that'll get them a lot of support.
They'd be left to scaring people about gays or people who have too much freedom, a position that will be increasingly less effective. The republicans are going to have a debate about which wing of their party to cater to, and if the religious extremists/fascists win, they won't build much support outside that base. If the libertarians win, but the democrats have implemented some libertarian laws themselves, they won't have much to run on.
*clap*
However I'm sure our cloudephants will spin that in a paragraph or 20 minus the linked dot com media. 
But... I thought all the conservatives had left was scare tactics about the evil immoral gays and TERRORISM. Ah well, still, well said.
Quote:
socialist
Quote:
low taxes on everybody but the top brackets
Aren't the two generally incompatible? I'm also in favor of a progressive tax on the rich, but it makes me wonder what the average American thinks - since the attitude here seems to be that you deserve every penny you earn. Isn't America philosophically opposed to the whole cradle to grave state care thing?
My big issue is personal/religious freedom, and respect for privacy. It's time to start thinking about rolling back the huge inroads the government has made into our private lives in the name of fighting terrorism.
Quote:
all the conservatives had left was scare tactics about the evil immoral gays and TERRORISM
cognitive dissonance is a bugger, eh
Then again, American government has it's roots in not wanting taxes at all. England tried to tax us on tea and we were just like "No, f*ck you" and kicked some Revolutionary War ass.
That was actually a tax decrease on tea, but they started enforcing it, IIRC. The issues were a lot deeper than taxes.
Originally income taxes were illegal. If they ever get the national debt down to 0 in like 1000 years I'd consider the idea of making non-commercial income taxes on individuals voluntary for membership in certain public programs. Philosophically I don't think the government has a right to "claim ownersip" of a person.
Quote:
Aren't the two generally incompatible?
Quote:
pick your label, they mean different things to everybody and I don't fit in with a specific group
If the Dems want to win the hearts and minds of America they need to abandon the more radical socialist leanings of the Democratic Platform.
The first two are easy, they don't have to do a THING.
No new gun control.
No rolling back tax cuts. Tax revenues are up anyways, just spend more wisely.
These next are a little harder.
Fix Medicaid prescription drug benefits by allowing the administration to BARGAIN with drug companies. This will be hard because Big Pharma has more lobbyists than any other organization.
Border Security. Build the fence and get the guest worker program up and running. We don't want to stop immigration, we want to know who is inside our borders and for how long.
This next one is seemingly impossible.
Reduce government overlap by consolidating agencies. The FBI , US Marshals, and the BATFE do the same jobs, consolidate their functions and dismantle the BATFE to save money. There are a bunch of other examples, CIA, DIA, NSA, etc that can consolidate and save taxpayer dollars.
Jimro
Jimro
I don't think most people are really scared of social programs or socialism (other than the word), as long as they aren't intrusive, except small government purists or people who object to certain programs that don't fit their ideology.
Voluntary public health care, with private health care as a choice (so none of that "rich Canadians come to America" argument), would probably win over a lot more people than it would anger.
They probably won't roll back tax cuts on most people, but the 200k+ group will probably get more taxes, and I don't expect that to anger a whole lot of voters either.
Quote:
Border Security. Build the fence and get the guest worker program up and running. We don't want to stop immigration, we want to know who is inside our borders and for how long.
Would a fence really do anything? It seems to me that determined people would not be dissuaded by it and it would probably cost a lot of money and cause hassle for border towns that trade and intermingle.
Quote:
This next one is seemingly impossible.
Reduce government overlap by consolidating agencies. The FBI , US Marshals, and the BATFE do the same jobs, consolidate their functions and dismantle the BATFE to save money. There are a bunch of other examples, CIA, DIA, NSA, etc that can consolidate and save taxpayer dollars.
Seemingly impossible because of turf battles and regional interests, or political lethargy? It is a good idea, but I don't hear it a lot from either party.
The fence will only work in conjunction with a guest worker program. The border security isn't to keep guest workers out, it is to allow the US to monitor who is entering the country by making it easier to get a guest worker card than risking their lives in the Arizona desert.
Fences do work, and they are less expensive than some of the "high tech" solutions that are being tossed around. After all, how many prisons are guarded just with cameras and UAV's? This is not to equate either Mexico or the US with a prison, just to show the effectiveness of fences.
Border security needs to be about security, not immigration.
Jimro
We should take a page from Good Ol' Honest Clinton! A 40 mile fence, Thatll keep them damn illegals out! There's no way they'll just drive around it. Hell no! It's too long!
And then, like, what do we need Border Guards for? WHAT! Two of them shot an innocent drug smuggler! WE CAN'T HAVE THAT! No shooting on the border - We already hav e a40mi fence, we don't need GUNS too! What is our government THINKING! Throw those men in prison!
And while we're at it, give the smuggler amnesty so he can testify against these bastard Border Guards!
Also: The best solution is to build a giant wall to keep them out. Fence, wall, whatever.
I mean, the Chinese did that. What did the Mongols do?
The French do that? What did the Germans do?
The Romans do that? What did the Huns do?
Obviously, they looked at the wall, shouted angrily, and turned around and went home. Duh.
SX fails at sarcasm =(
I made it overly obvious intentionally; the last time I used sarcasm, I got IMed/PMed/emailed/otherwise contacted at least five times from people missing the joke.
Welcome to my world.
Jimro, would there be limits on the guest worker program (which I agree we should have in some form)? It would help with the exploitation and job drain, but, if there isn't a limit on the number of people who get guest worker status, the employment market would flood, expanding supply beyond demand (though that might be fixed by a guest worker tax on employers). If there is a limit, a fence might stop some people, but we again have the issue of the determined. And if the issue is security, I don't expect terrorists would be stopped by a fence.
If you mean a patrolled fence, which might be the case with your prison example, that would stop most people, but it sounds expensive. So basically I'm not quite sure what the details of this proposal are.
I think a lot of people are forgetting that there's more ways into the US other than the MExican and canadian borders. I've lived on the coast almost all of my life; I've seen miles and miles and miles of undefended, uncared-for, unattended beach. It wouldn't be difficult for a potential terrorist, hypothetically with a nuke or something, to just boat onto this beach and be met by a forward agent (Tourist visa and rental SUV or something, I guess.)
Before anyone mentionst he Coast Guard; the only thing they're looking for is drugs. Unless it's in a big box clearly labelled NUCLEAR WEAPON, they won't care about it unless it's powdery and white. Faked passport or something, I don't know, and have a nice day!
It wouldn't be difficult for a potential terrorist, hypothetically with a nuke or something
Ugh...
Ah, nevermind, I think I know why. We're talking about illegal Mexicans and I mention terrorists. My fault - I guess it was on my mind after seeing some random "special" on CNN about why illegal workers isn't the only threat an undefended border poses. So I just read the thread with that in mind. Sorry if you hate seeing my every post or whatever.
I'm sorry for trying to give people a different way to look at the issue. I swear, it won't happen again, Sir.
Don't copy a message in this and cry about it. If you don't want to here me, ignore me. Please.
You cannot defend everywhere all the time.
If you do that, you really defend NOWHERE.
as far as SX's comment about the Great Wall, the Maginot Line, etc they are valid points when talking about a military invasion. How about the Berlin Wall? It kept people seperated pretty good.
Altho the Mexicans won't shoot those trying to cross the border. The Mexican government has no interest in our border security.
What a fence can do is increase the level of security. If we stop 50% more than we do now, that is a measure of success. There is absolutely no way to stop all illegal border crossings, but what we can do is reduce the ease.
Someone absolutely determined to cross the border will find a way (smugglers, terrorists, criminals on the run). Someone who just wants to earn some money and then go back home will probably wait until the paperwork for the guest worker card goes through.
Remember this is about security, not immigration. Now when there is a border incident the chances would be higher that it is a criminal/terrorist/smuggler instead of someone simply looking for work.
Jimro
No, iirc the Berlin Wall was only effective when the Soviet Union started outting armed guards in towers to shoot those who tried to cross. Before that it was just a wall, they climbed it all the time. It wasn't the wall that kep people from crossing, it was the fact that they'd be shot while trying to scale it.
And the Maginot line was just a laughable attempt at keeping an enemy from crossing a border there was no historical precedent or strategical reason for them crossing =)
SX, the fence would add to the security, not be the sole means of securing the border.
I realize that we can't put a guard tower every hundred feet, but we pretty much have all the sensors in place, the only thing that is lacking is the fence.
Just because it won't work 100% doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. I'll settle for a fence that cuts unauthorized crossings by any double digit percentage.
Jimro
Hell, I uspport it too. It's better than nothing.
But I think there ust has to be a beter way to spend money towards securing the border than a giant fence.
And what do sensors do? Tell you that someone's corssing. They don't stop them.
And then, if they deploy Border Patrol agents, they can't do anything without being arrested anyway. AND the smuggler/terrorist/illegal worker/drug runner/lost mexican guy gets amnesty to testify!
