Campaign 2016

[Emily]

But how a statement about policy changes allowing the USSR breakup resulting in a freer society was not a result of Reagan efforts is ridiculous, when indeed it was under Reagan.

Only ridiculous to someone who thinks that everything that happens in the world happened because of the sitting US president.

We are not at all generous on a humanitarian level:
https://www.princeton.edu/~soapbox/vol2no4/24noveck.html

This campaign season does indeed show that US Americans are displeased, but it also shows that they have a complete misunderstanding of why things are as they are.

Yes, they are displeased.  More like incensed, to see illegal drugs coming into this country on submarines which kill our young people, daily, by the scores.  

Big Pharma is unchecked as well. That needs to be fixed.    

And, seeing hotels/hospitals set up for labor and delivery to take advantage of jus soli American citizenship.  

Seeing our military commit suicide because they can't get VA treatment.  

Military paying for body armor.  Bail outs of the auto and banking industries. And homeowners becoming homeless because no one bailed them out.  They have had enough.  

And the backlash has been building on both sides of the party, with Dems and Republicans plotting to deny the ticket toppers the nomination. Oh, the people are not "misunderstanding" the corruption in politics. They are getting the message, loud and clear.  

For years, politicos have complained about lack of political involvement by the citizens.  Now, nearly everyone is engaged.  No one in power likes it.

If people are misunderstanding of "why things are as they are" maybe an education campaign might help fix that.  

But, I think they are watching primary elections, caucuses, and rallies and they are understanding exactly what is going on.  

None of these are the source problems. People are focusing on symptoms.

Emily - they are among the punch list items for campaign issues.  Only those who can set policy can fix some of these "symptoms."  The electorate wants this fixed. They pay a lot of taxes for the level of inefficiency they are saddled with.  

Inefficiency and incompetence.  Flint water.  Only when it was held up to the sunlight was there action.  Now, we find out, there is lead in the water all over the country.  What a surprise.  

Symptoms lead to diagnosis.  And remediation.  Raising awareness about the symptoms, is the first start to remediation.

But if you focus the treatment on the symptoms and don't have any idea of the cause, you're just throwing resources away.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

All the historic analysis is not going to keep the US safe. Enforcing current laws on the books just might.  

I disagree with the first sentence. I think learning that previous actions have consequences in the present will definitely help keep the country safe.

CSM - We have laws on the books for border security and for immigration.  They are not being enforced.  It is contributing to the disorder of the country.

That is what I was referring to.  That is a first step for national security which is uppermost on the minds of many people.  

Again, I was referring to the first sentence not the second. As far as border security goes, this would not be a problem if the United States had not enacted policies that viciously exploited Mexico. To me, the conversation of border security for Mexico amounts to telling Mexicans that they are forbidden from trying to disentangle themselves from being exploited. To me, there are ways to improve the order of the country without forcing people to submit to our exploitation and devastating economic policies. And if the law suggests that we should force these people to submit to that, then the law should be changed.

[filledeplage]

All the historic analysis is not going to keep the US safe. Enforcing current laws on the books just might.  

I disagree with the first sentence. I think learning that previous actions have consequences in the present will definitely help keep the country safe.

CSM - We have laws on the books for border security and for immigration.  They are not being enforced.  It is contributing to the disorder of the country.

That is what I was referring to.  That is a first step for national security which is uppermost on the minds of many people.  

Again, I was referring to the first sentence not the second. As far as border security goes, this would not be a problem if the United States had not enacted policies that viciously exploited Mexico. To me, the conversation of border security for Mexico amounts to telling Mexicans that they are forbidden from trying to disentangle themselves from being exploited. To me, there are ways to improve the order of the country without forcing people to submit to our exploitation and devastating economic policies. And if the law suggests that we should force these people to submit to that, then the law should be changed.

CSM - That is one of the great fallacies.  Many Mexicans cross in to the US every day to work.  Last week there was a shocking video of 2 young kids scaling a fence with a backpack of drugs and were chased back over the other side.  There are tunnels under the borders, some miles long to distribute drugs which are networked across the nation. 

A couple of large companies are in the process of moving to Mexico. I think Nabisco is one.

So those jobs are being lost to the US.  So those people end up on the unemployment rolls.

There are many categories for people to come to the US.  They got almost from A to Z.  Discussing economic policies without breaking them down, to educate the citizens and work on bad ones to get them repealed is just academic theorizing.  It has to be made "real" for people to really get what is going on. People need to understand and connect in a meaningful way.   

[SMiLE Brian]

So Trump's demagoguery is supposed to solve all of this?

[filledeplage]

But how a statement about policy changes allowing the USSR breakup resulting in a freer society was not a result of Reagan efforts is ridiculous, when indeed it was under Reagan.

Only ridiculous to someone who thinks that everything that happens in the world happened because of the sitting US president.

We are not at all generous on a humanitarian level:
https://www.princeton.edu/~soapbox/vol2no4/24noveck.html

This campaign season does indeed show that US Americans are displeased, but it also shows that they have a complete misunderstanding of why things are as they are.

Yes, they are displeased.  More like incensed, to see illegal drugs coming into this country on submarines which kill our young people, daily, by the scores.  

Big Pharma is unchecked as well. That needs to be fixed.    

And, seeing hotels/hospitals set up for labor and delivery to take advantage of jus soli American citizenship.  

Seeing our military commit suicide because they can't get VA treatment.  

Military paying for body armor.  Bail outs of the auto and banking industries. And homeowners becoming homeless because no one bailed them out.  They have had enough.  

And the backlash has been building on both sides of the party, with Dems and Republicans plotting to deny the ticket toppers the nomination. Oh, the people are not "misunderstanding" the corruption in politics. They are getting the message, loud and clear.  

For years, politicos have complained about lack of political involvement by the citizens.  Now, nearly everyone is engaged.  No one in power likes it.

If people are misunderstanding of "why things are as they are" maybe an education campaign might help fix that.  

But, I think they are watching primary elections, caucuses, and rallies and they are understanding exactly what is going on.  

None of these are the source problems. People are focusing on symptoms.

Emily - they are among the punch list items for campaign issues.  Only those who can set policy can fix some of these "symptoms."  The electorate wants this fixed. They pay a lot of taxes for the level of inefficiency they are saddled with.  

Inefficiency and incompetence.  Flint water.  Only when it was held up to the sunlight was there action.  Now, we find out, there is lead in the water all over the country.  What a surprise.  

Symptoms lead to diagnosis.  And remediation.  Raising awareness about the symptoms, is the first start to remediation.

But if you focus the treatment on the symptoms and don't have any idea of the cause, you're just throwing resources away.

Emily - we can start with body armor.  That is a funding matter. That is fixable.  Find the mismanagement.  Fix it.  Done.  

Flint with bad water?  Find who signed off on the pipe re-routing.  Fire them.  Re-route the pipes. Find out who covered it up at the EPA. Fire them, too. Done.

Military suicide?  Find the incompetent docs in the VA. Fire them.  Send the vets to private docs who are competent. Done.
  
Find those vets who have waited 2 hours to get through to the suicide hot line on recorded line.  Find out who ordered a recorded hotline for suicide prevention.  Fire them.

Find those vets who have waited 2 months for an appointment.  Give them the same hospital card that the congressmen/women have.  That will fix things PDQ.
 
Better yet. Close the VA.  Enroll the vets in the medical insurance that the congressmen/women get.

Those are not theoretical "symptoms," but "results" of incompetence and complacency and cover-ups.  Fixable.   Incompetence can be fixed.  

It is called, "You're fired."  

[filledeplage]

So Trump's demagoguery is supposed to solve all of this?

Who is gonna fix it?  Got a suggestion?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

All the historic analysis is not going to keep the US safe. Enforcing current laws on the books just might.  

I disagree with the first sentence. I think learning that previous actions have consequences in the present will definitely help keep the country safe.

CSM - We have laws on the books for border security and for immigration.  They are not being enforced.  It is contributing to the disorder of the country.

That is what I was referring to.  That is a first step for national security which is uppermost on the minds of many people.  

Again, I was referring to the first sentence not the second. As far as border security goes, this would not be a problem if the United States had not enacted policies that viciously exploited Mexico. To me, the conversation of border security for Mexico amounts to telling Mexicans that they are forbidden from trying to disentangle themselves from being exploited. To me, there are ways to improve the order of the country without forcing people to submit to our exploitation and devastating economic policies. And if the law suggests that we should force these people to submit to that, then the law should be changed.

CSM - That is one of the great fallacies.  Many Mexicans cross in to the US every day to work.  Last week there was a shocking video of 2 young kids scaling a fence with a backpack of drugs and were chased back over the other side.  There are tunnels under the borders, some miles long to distribute drugs which are networked across the nation.  

A couple of large companies are in the process of moving to Mexico. I think Nabisco is one.

So those jobs are being lost to the US.  So those people end up on the unemployment rolls.

There are many categories for people to come to the US.  They got almost from A to Z.  Discussing economic policies without breaking them down, to educate the citizens and work on bad ones to get them repealed is just academic theorizing.  It has to be made "real" for people to really get what is going on. People need to understand and connect in a meaningful way.  

I'm not sure what you are saying is a fallacy because you are mostly confirming my point. Of course large companies are moving to Mexico. US companies go to Mexico because the wages there are lower, dropping 22% after NAFTA was imposed while worker productivity went up 45%. Mexican workers are, in general, forced to take these low paying jobs after US businesses virtually devastated Mexican industry as Mexican farmers couldn't compete against US subsidized businesses. This is why migration from Mexico rose sharply after the imposition of NAFTA. Again, the position here is that Mexicans should simply tolerate being economically destroyed and the law should be enforced against those who don't tolerate it. Personally I don't consider that to be a legitimate position.

Of course it is a problem that jobs are being lost in the US but this is incomparable to the utter havoc and devastation that has been wreaked on Mexico by these policies and the US should be paying enormous reparations for destroying a good part of the country.

Source: http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/10/11/globalization-and-nafta-caused-migration-from-mexico/#sthash.JMStal3s.dpbs

[SMiLE Brian]

But how a statement about policy changes allowing the USSR breakup resulting in a freer society was not a result of Reagan efforts is ridiculous, when indeed it was under Reagan.

Only ridiculous to someone who thinks that everything that happens in the world happened because of the sitting US president.

We are not at all generous on a humanitarian level:
https://www.princeton.edu/~soapbox/vol2no4/24noveck.html

This campaign season does indeed show that US Americans are displeased, but it also shows that they have a complete misunderstanding of why things are as they are.

Yes, they are displeased.  More like incensed, to see illegal drugs coming into this country on submarines which kill our young people, daily, by the scores.  

Big Pharma is unchecked as well. That needs to be fixed.    

And, seeing hotels/hospitals set up for labor and delivery to take advantage of jus soli American citizenship.  

Seeing our military commit suicide because they can't get VA treatment.  

Military paying for body armor.  Bail outs of the auto and banking industries. And homeowners becoming homeless because no one bailed them out.  They have had enough.  

And the backlash has been building on both sides of the party, with Dems and Republicans plotting to deny the ticket toppers the nomination. Oh, the people are not "misunderstanding" the corruption in politics. They are getting the message, loud and clear.  

For years, politicos have complained about lack of political involvement by the citizens.  Now, nearly everyone is engaged.  No one in power likes it.

If people are misunderstanding of "why things are as they are" maybe an education campaign might help fix that.  

But, I think they are watching primary elections, caucuses, and rallies and they are understanding exactly what is going on.  

None of these are the source problems. People are focusing on symptoms.

Emily - they are among the punch list items for campaign issues.  Only those who can set policy can fix some of these "symptoms."  The electorate wants this fixed. They pay a lot of taxes for the level of inefficiency they are saddled with.  

Inefficiency and incompetence.  Flint water.  Only when it was held up to the sunlight was there action.  Now, we find out, there is lead in the water all over the country.  What a surprise.  

Symptoms lead to diagnosis.  And remediation.  Raising awareness about the symptoms, is the first start to remediation.

But if you focus the treatment on the symptoms and don't have any idea of the cause, you're just throwing resources away.

Emily - we can start with body armor.  That is a funding matter. That is fixable.  Find the mismanagement.  Fix it.  Done.  

Flint with bad water?  Find who signed off on the pipe re-routing.  Fire them.  Re-route the pipes. Find out who covered it up at the EPA. Fire them, too. Done.

Military suicide?  Find the incompetent docs in the VA. Fire them.  Send the vets to private docs who are competent. Done.
  
Find those vets who have waited 2 hours to get through to the suicide hot line on recorded line.  Find out who ordered a recorded hotline for suicide prevention.  Fire them.

Find those vets who have waited 2 months for an appointment.  Give them the same hospital card that the congressmen/women have.  That will fix things PDQ.
 
Better yet. Close the VA.  Enroll the vets in the medical insurance that the congressmen/women get.

Those are not theoretical "symptoms," but "results" of incompetence and complacency and cover-ups.  Fixable.   Incompetence can be fixed.  

It is called, "You're fired."  

Thought so....

[filledeplage]

All the historic analysis is not going to keep the US safe. Enforcing current laws on the books just might.  

I disagree with the first sentence. I think learning that previous actions have consequences in the present will definitely help keep the country safe.

CSM - We have laws on the books for border security and for immigration.  They are not being enforced.  It is contributing to the disorder of the country.

That is what I was referring to.  That is a first step for national security which is uppermost on the minds of many people.  

Again, I was referring to the first sentence not the second. As far as border security goes, this would not be a problem if the United States had not enacted policies that viciously exploited Mexico. To me, the conversation of border security for Mexico amounts to telling Mexicans that they are forbidden from trying to disentangle themselves from being exploited. To me, there are ways to improve the order of the country without forcing people to submit to our exploitation and devastating economic policies. And if the law suggests that we should force these people to submit to that, then the law should be changed.

CSM - That is one of the great fallacies.  Many Mexicans cross in to the US every day to work.  Last week there was a shocking video of 2 young kids scaling a fence with a backpack of drugs and were chased back over the other side.  There are tunnels under the borders, some miles long to distribute drugs which are networked across the nation.  

A couple of large companies are in the process of moving to Mexico. I think Nabisco is one.

So those jobs are being lost to the US.  So those people end up on the unemployment rolls.

There are many categories for people to come to the US.  They got almost from A to Z.  Discussing economic policies without breaking them down, to educate the citizens and work on bad ones to get them repealed is just academic theorizing.  It has to be made "real" for people to really get what is going on. People need to understand and connect in a meaningful way.  

I'm not sure what you are saying is a fallacy because you are mostly confirming my point. Of course large companies are moving to Mexico. US companies go to Mexico because the wages there are lower, dropping 22% after NAFTA was imposed while worker productivity went up 45%. Mexican workers are, in general, forced to take these low paying jobs after US businesses virtually devastated Mexican industry as Mexican farmers couldn't compete against US subsidized businesses. This is why migration from Mexico rose sharply after the imposition of NAFTA. Again, the position here is that Mexicans should simply tolerate being economically destroyed and the law should be enforced against those who don't tolerate it. Personally I don't consider that to be a legitimate position.

Of course it is a problem that jobs are being lost in the US but this is incomparable to the utter havoc and devastation that has been wreaked on Mexico by these policies and the US should be paying enormous reparations for destroying a good part of the country.

Source: http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/10/11/globalization-and-nafta-caused-migration-from-mexico/#sthash.JMStal3s.dpbs

CSM - I certainly don't advocate policies that hurt other nations.  But there are legislative ways to address that.  That is the problem.  People should have lobbied Obama to work on amending the treaty.  Or lobbied Congress to amend the treaty.  Migration from countries happens for many reasons, whether economic, political, or reunification of a family.  Policy change takes a lot of work.  If there was the will to change it, it would happen. But as legislation takes time and raising awareness, so, too does undoing bad effects of laws-on-the-books. 

[filledeplage]

But how a statement about policy changes allowing the USSR breakup resulting in a freer society was not a result of Reagan efforts is ridiculous, when indeed it was under Reagan.

Only ridiculous to someone who thinks that everything that happens in the world happened because of the sitting US president.

We are not at all generous on a humanitarian level:
https://www.princeton.edu/~soapbox/vol2no4/24noveck.html

This campaign season does indeed show that US Americans are displeased, but it also shows that they have a complete misunderstanding of why things are as they are.

Yes, they are displeased.  More like incensed, to see illegal drugs coming into this country on submarines which kill our young people, daily, by the scores.  

Big Pharma is unchecked as well. That needs to be fixed.    

And, seeing hotels/hospitals set up for labor and delivery to take advantage of jus soli American citizenship.  

Seeing our military commit suicide because they can't get VA treatment.  

Military paying for body armor.  Bail outs of the auto and banking industries. And homeowners becoming homeless because no one bailed them out.  They have had enough.  

And the backlash has been building on both sides of the party, with Dems and Republicans plotting to deny the ticket toppers the nomination. Oh, the people are not "misunderstanding" the corruption in politics. They are getting the message, loud and clear.  

For years, politicos have complained about lack of political involvement by the citizens.  Now, nearly everyone is engaged.  No one in power likes it.

If people are misunderstanding of "why things are as they are" maybe an education campaign might help fix that.  

But, I think they are watching primary elections, caucuses, and rallies and they are understanding exactly what is going on.  

None of these are the source problems. People are focusing on symptoms.

Emily - they are among the punch list items for campaign issues.  Only those who can set policy can fix some of these "symptoms."  The electorate wants this fixed. They pay a lot of taxes for the level of inefficiency they are saddled with.  

Inefficiency and incompetence.  Flint water.  Only when it was held up to the sunlight was there action.  Now, we find out, there is lead in the water all over the country.  What a surprise.  

Symptoms lead to diagnosis.  And remediation.  Raising awareness about the symptoms, is the first start to remediation.

But if you focus the treatment on the symptoms and don't have any idea of the cause, you're just throwing resources away.

Emily - we can start with body armor.  That is a funding matter. That is fixable.  Find the mismanagement.  Fix it.  Done.  

Flint with bad water?  Find who signed off on the pipe re-routing.  Fire them.  Re-route the pipes. Find out who covered it up at the EPA. Fire them, too. Done.

Military suicide?  Find the incompetent docs in the VA. Fire them.  Send the vets to private docs who are competent. Done.
  
Find those vets who have waited 2 hours to get through to the suicide hot line on recorded line.  Find out who ordered a recorded hotline for suicide prevention.  Fire them.

Find those vets who have waited 2 months for an appointment.  Give them the same hospital card that the congressmen/women have.  That will fix things PDQ.
 
Better yet. Close the VA.  Enroll the vets in the medical insurance that the congressmen/women get.

Those are not theoretical "symptoms," but "results" of incompetence and complacency and cover-ups.  Fixable.   Incompetence can be fixed.  

It is called, "You're fired."  

Thought so....

Smile Brian - I never even watched that show.   

Thanks for the visual.  And those idiots should be fired by Obama. What is he waiting for?  It makes him look incompetent.

[Emily]

But how a statement about policy changes allowing the USSR breakup resulting in a freer society was not a result of Reagan efforts is ridiculous, when indeed it was under Reagan.

Only ridiculous to someone who thinks that everything that happens in the world happened because of the sitting US president.

We are not at all generous on a humanitarian level:
https://www.princeton.edu/~soapbox/vol2no4/24noveck.html

This campaign season does indeed show that US Americans are displeased, but it also shows that they have a complete misunderstanding of why things are as they are.

Yes, they are displeased.  More like incensed, to see illegal drugs coming into this country on submarines which kill our young people, daily, by the scores.  

Big Pharma is unchecked as well. That needs to be fixed.    

And, seeing hotels/hospitals set up for labor and delivery to take advantage of jus soli American citizenship.  

Seeing our military commit suicide because they can't get VA treatment.  

Military paying for body armor.  Bail outs of the auto and banking industries. And homeowners becoming homeless because no one bailed them out.  They have had enough.  

And the backlash has been building on both sides of the party, with Dems and Republicans plotting to deny the ticket toppers the nomination. Oh, the people are not "misunderstanding" the corruption in politics. They are getting the message, loud and clear.  

For years, politicos have complained about lack of political involvement by the citizens.  Now, nearly everyone is engaged.  No one in power likes it.

If people are misunderstanding of "why things are as they are" maybe an education campaign might help fix that.  

But, I think they are watching primary elections, caucuses, and rallies and they are understanding exactly what is going on.  

None of these are the source problems. People are focusing on symptoms.

Emily - they are among the punch list items for campaign issues.  Only those who can set policy can fix some of these "symptoms."  The electorate wants this fixed. They pay a lot of taxes for the level of inefficiency they are saddled with.  

Inefficiency and incompetence.  Flint water.  Only when it was held up to the sunlight was there action.  Now, we find out, there is lead in the water all over the country.  What a surprise.  

Symptoms lead to diagnosis.  And remediation.  Raising awareness about the symptoms, is the first start to remediation.

But if you focus the treatment on the symptoms and don't have any idea of the cause, you're just throwing resources away.

Emily - we can start with body armor.  That is a funding matter. That is fixable.  Find the mismanagement.  Fix it.  Done.  

Flint with bad water?  Find who signed off on the pipe re-routing.  Fire them.  Re-route the pipes. Find out who covered it up at the EPA. Fire them, too. Done.

Military suicide?  Find the incompetent docs in the VA. Fire them.  Send the vets to private docs who are competent. Done.
  
Find those vets who have waited 2 hours to get through to the suicide hot line on recorded line.  Find out who ordered a recorded hotline for suicide prevention.  Fire them.

Find those vets who have waited 2 months for an appointment.  Give them the same hospital card that the congressmen/women have.  That will fix things PDQ.
 
Better yet. Close the VA.  Enroll the vets in the medical insurance that the congressmen/women get.

Those are not theoretical "symptoms," but "results" of incompetence and complacency and cover-ups.  Fixable.   Incompetence can be fixed.  

It is called, "You're fired."  

You can fix symptoms, as you suggest, by throwing resources at them. But it would be much wiser to direct resources at the underlying problem.

[filledeplage]

Emily - how long does it take to fix "procurement?" That is how the VA runs and you probably know that.   

It is broken.  People knew about these Flint problems and until the press got hold of the story nothing was done. They get called into a congressional hearing.  The ineptitude is written all over their faces.  They cannot respond. 

It is in need of fixing or replacement.  It is a national emergency.  There are hospitals across this country, that are closing because of insurance structure. They could be repurposed for vets care.   

There is passivity from those in authority.  They should be working around-the-clock. They aren't doing their jobs.

[Emily]

Emily - how long does it take to fix "procurement?" That is how the VA runs and you probably know that.   

It is broken.  People knew about these Flint problems and until the press got hold of the story nothing was done. They get called into a congressional hearing.  The ineptitude is written all over their faces.  They cannot respond. 

It is in need of fixing or replacement.  It is a national emergency.  There are hospitals across this country, that are closing because of insurance structure. They could be repurposed for vets care.   

There is passivity from those in authority.  They should be working around-the-clock. They aren't doing their jobs.

I agree that at times a symptom is bad enough that it must be addressed directly as a stop gap.

[SMiLE Brian]

Trump is a cancer on this symptoms.

[the captain]

So Trump's demagoguery is supposed to solve all of this?

Who is gonna fix it?  Got a suggestion?

No president will fix it, which is why Trump might be least capable of all: because he claims he can do it alone (lacking details, but presumably through some force of will), which is patently untrue based on the most basic functions of how our government works. No candidate is a savior. But this candidate has provided the least coherent plan of anyone in my lifetime. Nothing he says makes sense. His connections are purely emotional to angry people. Yes, they're angry. We all get that. Many of us are (about various, not always similar, things.) But anger is useless. It's for the stupid and weak, if you ask me (which you didn't). Trump's "plans" (such as they are) range from vague to unconstitutional to racist and idiotic. That's why NOT Trump.

So who? Pretty much anyone else, for a start, though I have my preferences. But for people to be excited about someone entirely unqualified, with not only no relevant background but no clearly stated plans whatsoever? It's depressing.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

All the historic analysis is not going to keep the US safe. Enforcing current laws on the books just might.  

I disagree with the first sentence. I think learning that previous actions have consequences in the present will definitely help keep the country safe.

CSM - We have laws on the books for border security and for immigration.  They are not being enforced.  It is contributing to the disorder of the country.

That is what I was referring to.  That is a first step for national security which is uppermost on the minds of many people.  

Again, I was referring to the first sentence not the second. As far as border security goes, this would not be a problem if the United States had not enacted policies that viciously exploited Mexico. To me, the conversation of border security for Mexico amounts to telling Mexicans that they are forbidden from trying to disentangle themselves from being exploited. To me, there are ways to improve the order of the country without forcing people to submit to our exploitation and devastating economic policies. And if the law suggests that we should force these people to submit to that, then the law should be changed.

CSM - That is one of the great fallacies.  Many Mexicans cross in to the US every day to work.  Last week there was a shocking video of 2 young kids scaling a fence with a backpack of drugs and were chased back over the other side.  There are tunnels under the borders, some miles long to distribute drugs which are networked across the nation.  

A couple of large companies are in the process of moving to Mexico. I think Nabisco is one.

So those jobs are being lost to the US.  So those people end up on the unemployment rolls.

There are many categories for people to come to the US.  They got almost from A to Z.  Discussing economic policies without breaking them down, to educate the citizens and work on bad ones to get them repealed is just academic theorizing.  It has to be made "real" for people to really get what is going on. People need to understand and connect in a meaningful way.  

I'm not sure what you are saying is a fallacy because you are mostly confirming my point. Of course large companies are moving to Mexico. US companies go to Mexico because the wages there are lower, dropping 22% after NAFTA was imposed while worker productivity went up 45%. Mexican workers are, in general, forced to take these low paying jobs after US businesses virtually devastated Mexican industry as Mexican farmers couldn't compete against US subsidized businesses. This is why migration from Mexico rose sharply after the imposition of NAFTA. Again, the position here is that Mexicans should simply tolerate being economically destroyed and the law should be enforced against those who don't tolerate it. Personally I don't consider that to be a legitimate position.

Of course it is a problem that jobs are being lost in the US but this is incomparable to the utter havoc and devastation that has been wreaked on Mexico by these policies and the US should be paying enormous reparations for destroying a good part of the country.

Source: http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/10/11/globalization-and-nafta-caused-migration-from-mexico/#sthash.JMStal3s.dpbs

CSM - I certainly don't advocate policies that hurt other nations.  But there are legislative ways to address that.  That is the problem.  People should have lobbied Obama to work on amending the treaty.  Or lobbied Congress to amend the treaty.  Migration from countries happens for many reasons, whether economic, political, or reunification of a family.  Policy change takes a lot of work.  If there was the will to change it, it would happen. But as legislation takes time and raising awareness, so, too does undoing bad effects of laws-on-the-books.  

Yes, migration does happen for many reasons but in the case of Mexican migration to the US, most of it happens because US-enforced economic policies have devastated the country and punishing these migrants for entering into the US is precisely hurting other nations since it is essentially punishing people for trying to escape the devastation.

As for legislative ways, the fact is that there has always been strong opposition to NAFTA right from the beginning, but the system works largely to privilege elite institutions and places profits ahead of people. The only way NAFTA will be repealed under the current system is not due to public opposition to change it, since that's always existed and nothing has changed. It will be repealed if it negatively impacts US business (no one will pay attention to the far more severe detrimental effects these policies have had in Mexico). So unless there is a real systemic change, I don't see NAFTA being repealed any time soon and if it is, it'll most likely be replaced with something equally odious.

[filledeplage]

All the historic analysis is not going to keep the US safe. Enforcing current laws on the books just might.  

I disagree with the first sentence. I think learning that previous actions have consequences in the present will definitely help keep the country safe.

CSM - We have laws on the books for border security and for immigration.  They are not being enforced.  It is contributing to the disorder of the country.

That is what I was referring to.  That is a first step for national security which is uppermost on the minds of many people.  

Again, I was referring to the first sentence not the second. As far as border security goes, this would not be a problem if the United States had not enacted policies that viciously exploited Mexico. To me, the conversation of border security for Mexico amounts to telling Mexicans that they are forbidden from trying to disentangle themselves from being exploited. To me, there are ways to improve the order of the country without forcing people to submit to our exploitation and devastating economic policies. And if the law suggests that we should force these people to submit to that, then the law should be changed.

CSM - That is one of the great fallacies.  Many Mexicans cross in to the US every day to work.  Last week there was a shocking video of 2 young kids scaling a fence with a backpack of drugs and were chased back over the other side.  There are tunnels under the borders, some miles long to distribute drugs which are networked across the nation.  

A couple of large companies are in the process of moving to Mexico. I think Nabisco is one.

So those jobs are being lost to the US.  So those people end up on the unemployment rolls.

There are many categories for people to come to the US.  They got almost from A to Z.  Discussing economic policies without breaking them down, to educate the citizens and work on bad ones to get them repealed is just academic theorizing.  It has to be made "real" for people to really get what is going on. People need to understand and connect in a meaningful way.  

I'm not sure what you are saying is a fallacy because you are mostly confirming my point. Of course large companies are moving to Mexico. US companies go to Mexico because the wages there are lower, dropping 22% after NAFTA was imposed while worker productivity went up 45%. Mexican workers are, in general, forced to take these low paying jobs after US businesses virtually devastated Mexican industry as Mexican farmers couldn't compete against US subsidized businesses. This is why migration from Mexico rose sharply after the imposition of NAFTA. Again, the position here is that Mexicans should simply tolerate being economically destroyed and the law should be enforced against those who don't tolerate it. Personally I don't consider that to be a legitimate position.

Of course it is a problem that jobs are being lost in the US but this is incomparable to the utter havoc and devastation that has been wreaked on Mexico by these policies and the US should be paying enormous reparations for destroying a good part of the country.

Source: http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/10/11/globalization-and-nafta-caused-migration-from-mexico/#sthash.JMStal3s.dpbs

CSM - I certainly don't advocate policies that hurt other nations.  But there are legislative ways to address that.  That is the problem.  People should have lobbied Obama to work on amending the treaty.  Or lobbied Congress to amend the treaty.  Migration from countries happens for many reasons, whether economic, political, or reunification of a family.  Policy change takes a lot of work.  If there was the will to change it, it would happen. But as legislation takes time and raising awareness, so, too does undoing bad effects of laws-on-the-books.  

Yes, migration does happen for many reasons but in the case of Mexican migration to the US, most of it happens because US-enforced economic policies have devastated the country and punishing these migrants for entering into the US is precisely hurting other nations since it is essentially punishing people for trying to escape the devastation.

As for legislative ways, the fact is that there has always been strong opposition to NAFTA right from the beginning, but the system works largely to privilege elite institutions and places profits ahead of people. The only way NAFTA will be repealed under the current system is not due to public opposition to change it, since that's always existed and nothing has changed. It will be repealed if it negatively impacts US business (no one will pay attention to the far more severe detrimental effects these policies have had in Mexico). So unless there is a real systemic change, I don't see NAFTA being repealed any time soon and if it is, it'll most likely be replaced with something equally odious.

CSM - I happen to believe in the success of strong activism.

If you go into a fight expecting to lose and being pessimistic; you will lose.  If you approach it differently, with realistic and objective goals, and solid facts in hand, with a media plan, anything is possible, even if it is controversial.  Remember you will be attacked. Expect to be attacked.  You need to be able to withstand criticism, ridicule, and keep looking forward and never backward.  

Never underestimate your enemies, but keep going forward. Give yourself lots of time, as even small legislative action, never happens overnight. Be patient with it and with yourself.  

And, remember the more opposition you get, it means you are getting your message out, and winning!

If you believe strongly in a cause, just go for it!    

[filledeplage]

So Trump's demagoguery is supposed to solve all of this?

Who is gonna fix it?  Got a suggestion?

No president will fix it, which is why Trump might be least capable of all: because he claims he can do it alone (lacking details, but presumably through some force of will), which is patently untrue based on the most basic functions of how our government works. No candidate is a savior. But this candidate has provided the least coherent plan of anyone in my lifetime. Nothing he says makes sense. His connections are purely emotional to angry people. Yes, they're angry. We all get that. Many of us are (about various, not always similar, things.) But anger is useless. It's for the stupid and weak, if you ask me (which you didn't). Trump's "plans" (such as they are) range from vague to unconstitutional to racist and idiotic. That's why NOT Trump.

So who? Pretty much anyone else, for a start, though I have my preferences. But for people to be excited about someone entirely unqualified, with not only no relevant background but no clearly stated plans whatsoever? It's depressing.

Captain - It is unrealistic to think a President can fix everything. I want only a few things fixed.  National security, the VA, and some of the corruption. Education, too.  Education should be freed from this political correctness nonsense with attention re-focused on skills.  We are behind many countries with fewer resources.  Education is a business with vendors and special interests at the trough in the States.  

You are correct. Anger fixes nothing.  But painting the voters as all "angry and stupid" is not productive. Frustrated people can get angry. Anger can propel people to become involved and better informed. It is frustration at the system and the double standards that has changed the terrain this election cycle.    

Trump is a business man, not a political hack.  He understands international business, which is not unimportant.  He understands trade.  We need a trade-strong president.  Clearly others in congress are clueless. That does not mean he does not need to be "checked" for policy issues.  I want someone who will come in like gangbusters and clean house of the unmitigated incompetence in DC.

Oddly, Sanders' candidacy is almost a mirror image of Trumps' in many respects is fueled by the same frustration at DC and the entrenched corruption but for different reasons.  

    

[Chocolate Shake Man]

CSM - I happen to believe in the success of strong activism.

If you go into a fight expecting to lose and being pessimistic; you will lose.  If you approach it differently, with realistic and objective goals, and solid facts in hand, with a media plan, anything is possible, even if it is controversial.  Remember you will be attacked. Expect to be attacked.  You need to be able to withstand criticism, ridicule, and keep looking forward and never backward.  

Never underestimate your enemies, but keep going forward. Give yourself lots of time, as even small legislative action, never happens overnight. Be patient with it and with yourself.  

And, remember the more opposition you get, it means you are getting your message out, and winning!

If you believe strongly in a cause, just go for it!    

I believe in activism as well but, like I said, short of systemic change, I can't see NAFTA or programs like NAFTA ever being eliminated. It's kind of like the wars in Central America that I've been describing above. By the 1980s there was enormous public opposition to war, after the Vietnam debacle. Reagan was ultimately unable to wage that kind of war due to public pressure. But he did find a way around that by fighting wars through proxy armies. The protests did accomplish something important and put significant amount of pressure on power, but because no systemic change was made, the same acts took place in different ways. But, yes, I definitely think public pressure can result in some positive changes.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Trump is a business man, not a political hack.  He understands international business, which is not unimportant.  He understands trade.  We need a trade-strong president.  Clearly others in congress are clueless. That does not mean he does not need to be "checked" for policy issues.  I want someone who will come in like gangbusters and clean house of the unmitigated incompetence in DC.

The only parts of Trump's economic policy that are coherent look disastrous to me.

[SMiLE Brian]

He is only an expert in lining his own pockets.

[filledeplage]

CSM - I happen to believe in the success of strong activism.

If you go into a fight expecting to lose and being pessimistic; you will lose.  If you approach it differently, with realistic and objective goals, and solid facts in hand, with a media plan, anything is possible, even if it is controversial.  Remember you will be attacked. Expect to be attacked.  You need to be able to withstand criticism, ridicule, and keep looking forward and never backward.  

Never underestimate your enemies, but keep going forward. Give yourself lots of time, as even small legislative action, never happens overnight. Be patient with it and with yourself.  

And, remember the more opposition you get, it means you are getting your message out, and winning!

If you believe strongly in a cause, just go for it!    

I believe in activism as well but, like I said, short of systemic change, I can't see NAFTA or programs like NAFTA ever being eliminated. It's kind of like the wars in Central America that I've been describing above. By the 1980s there was enormous public opposition to war, after the Vietnam debacle. Reagan was ultimately unable to wage that kind of war due to public pressure. But he did find a way around that by fighting wars through proxy armies. The protests did accomplish something important and put significant amount of pressure on power, but because no systemic change was made, the same acts took place in different ways. But, yes, I definitely think public pressure can result in some positive changes.

CSM - Activism is the start.  Working on consciousness raising info/articles is a good way to start.  The "pen is mightier than the sword" - to quote a famous song, that I like.  

"Electeds" have people who read everything.  It is like a brush fire. Anyplace that will take the articles (because the big ones never do at the outset) is as good a place as any.  They pay attention when you walk into a congressional office with a handful of articles you have written, that have readership in their districts, and why even smaller papers can be very helpful.

The Central America issues have to be broken down so people understand them; they are incredibly complex and have gone on for decades. But, people can understand money and jobs.  It is a good place to start.  Write so 5 year-old will understand. Otherwise people might not read it.

Social media has changed the terrain and might also be a good place to link articles.  It is a good alternative to print media whose readership has fallen off.  
  

[the captain]

Trump is a business man, not a political hack.  He understands international business, which is not unimportant.  He understands trade.  We need a trade-strong president.  Clearly others in congress are clueless. That does not mean he does not need to be "checked" for policy issues.  I want someone who will come in like gangbusters and clean house of the unmitigated incompetence in DC.

Oddly, Sanders' candidacy is almost a mirror image of Trumps' in many respects is fueled by the same frustration at DC and the entrenched corruption but for different reasons.  

No. Trump, as was shown very early on in his candidacy, is not a particularly good businessman. He would have made far more money had he simply put his (vast) inherited wealth into some basic funds. (I forget the specifics, but something like an index fund that averages the dow or something. I can't pretend to know much about that stuff, so I won't.) He is not a good businessman. He is rich because he started off rich. He's been able to keep making money with money because you'd have to be a monkey to fail to do so. Where would he be had he begun in poverty? One cannot know, but one can guess. (Assistant manager at McDonald's, angry because his boss is a Muslim woman and "they're taking our jobs?" That's my guess.)

And Sanders' campaign, aside from the frustration at the current state of things, is nothing like Trump's. Sanders has decades in government service. Trump has none. Sanders has actual policy positions. Trump has none. People who like Sanders purely out of frustration, people who say they're between Sanders and Trump for their choice (which as a statement shows a total lack of comprehension of anything either says), well, I don't like those people either. They're equally stupid. And I don't much care if it's not helpful to say that. It's true. (To soften it somewhat, "thinking that is stupid." Maybe they're somehow smart in other facets of life.)

[filledeplage]

Trump is a business man, not a political hack.  He understands international business, which is not unimportant.  He understands trade.  We need a trade-strong president.  Clearly others in congress are clueless. That does not mean he does not need to be "checked" for policy issues.  I want someone who will come in like gangbusters and clean house of the unmitigated incompetence in DC.

Oddly, Sanders' candidacy is almost a mirror image of Trumps' in many respects is fueled by the same frustration at DC and the entrenched corruption but for different reasons.  

No. Trump, as was shown very early on in his candidacy, is not a particularly good businessman. He would have made far more money had he simply put his (vast) inherited wealth into some basic funds. (I forget the specifics, but something like an index fund that averages the dow or something. I can't pretend to know much about that stuff, so I won't.) He is not a good businessman. He is rich because he started off rich. He's been able to keep making money with money because you'd have to be a monkey to fail to do so. Where would he be had he begun in poverty? One cannot know, but one can guess. (Assistant manager at McDonald's, angry because his boss is a Muslim woman and "they're taking our jobs?" That's my guess.)

And Sanders' campaign, aside from the frustration at the current state of things, is nothing like Trump's. Sanders has decades in government service. Trump has none. Sanders has actual policy positions. Trump has none. People who like Sanders purely out of frustration, people who say they're between Sanders and Trump for their choice (which as a statement shows a total lack of comprehension of anything either says), well, I don't like those people either. They're equally stupid. And I don't much care if it's not helpful to say that. It's true. (To soften it somewhat, "thinking that is stupid." Maybe they're somehow smart in other facets of life.)

Captain - we are down to 4 candidates who have a "path" (the new term for 2016) to the WH.  We have Clinton, Sanders, Cruz and Trump.  So, among those four we have to choose.  Two have turned me off after their chicanery Cruz and Clinton. Cruz shafted Dr. Carson in a mis-information campaign the day before some primary.  You can play hardball in a campaign, but dirty tricks are the deal-breaker, in my book.  So, Cruz is out, for me.   

Clinton is out, because of Benghazi and her email server. That leaves two; Sanders and Trump. Kasich is a spoiler candidate.   

Trump can balance his ticket with someone who is a politician who can balance the ticket with someone who knows the terrain and can navigate the minefield.  He probably will pick someone who has a track record.  And Sanders will probably find a more moderate, or conservative to balance the ticket if he makes it to the nomination, to appeal to that sector.     

[Chocolate Shake Man]

CSM - I happen to believe in the success of strong activism.

If you go into a fight expecting to lose and being pessimistic; you will lose.  If you approach it differently, with realistic and objective goals, and solid facts in hand, with a media plan, anything is possible, even if it is controversial.  Remember you will be attacked. Expect to be attacked.  You need to be able to withstand criticism, ridicule, and keep looking forward and never backward.  

Never underestimate your enemies, but keep going forward. Give yourself lots of time, as even small legislative action, never happens overnight. Be patient with it and with yourself.  

And, remember the more opposition you get, it means you are getting your message out, and winning!

If you believe strongly in a cause, just go for it!    

I believe in activism as well but, like I said, short of systemic change, I can't see NAFTA or programs like NAFTA ever being eliminated. It's kind of like the wars in Central America that I've been describing above. By the 1980s there was enormous public opposition to war, after the Vietnam debacle. Reagan was ultimately unable to wage that kind of war due to public pressure. But he did find a way around that by fighting wars through proxy armies. The protests did accomplish something important and put significant amount of pressure on power, but because no systemic change was made, the same acts took place in different ways. But, yes, I definitely think public pressure can result in some positive changes.

CSM - Activism is the start.  Working on consciousness raising info/articles is a good way to start.  The "pen is mightier than the sword" - to quote a famous song, that I like.  

"Electeds" have people who read everything.  It is like a brush fire. Anyplace that will take the articles (because the big ones never do at the outset) is as good a place as any.  They pay attention when you walk into a congressional office with a handful of articles you have written, that have readership in their districts, and why even smaller papers can be very helpful.

The Central America issues have to be broken down so people understand them; they are incredibly complex and have gone on for decades. But, people can understand money and jobs.  It is a good place to start.  Write so 5 year-old will understand. Otherwise people might not read it.

Social media has changed the terrain and might also be a good place to link articles.  It is a good alternative to print media whose readership has fallen off.  
  

I don't quite agree with your point about social media. I think some good things can happen there but, remember that 90% of the media is controlled by six corporations and that information filters down so while people in social media might think somewhat differently from the status quo, most of them have spent a lifetime being informed by the major propaganda systems which are very difficult to disentangle oneself from. So much of what I see in social media is merely different rhetoric used to express points of view that tend to align nicely with elite opinion. The whole current US version of libertarianism, for example, which is an incredibly popular online ideology is precisely that, in my opinion: the point of view of the powerful expressed by the disaffected. And, for the most part, the information on the internet is junk because you can say whatever you want on the internet without having to actually worry about proving your point legitimately. In many ways, then, social media is a haven for misinformation and now people just accept whatever article sounds the most convincing as per their own already held beliefs. Again, take the contemporary US libertarian movement: it's about 98% posturing and almost entirely rhetorical. It's rare to find a US libertarian who can have a conversation without scoffing with exasperation at what they just barely conceal to be their opinion of other people. That's why it's such an appealing political position for young white men.

I also disagree with your position on Central America. I don't think the issues there are any more complex than NAFTA. Quite simply, when the countries there moved toward democratization and a liberation of national resources, the US government moved in to destroy it.