Hardly new Tim.They have lots of new ideas. Only today, President Trump proposed a major overhaul to our immigration system. I happen to despise every aspect of what he’s talking about, but it’s certainly new.
I don’t think this merit based thing has ever been formally proposed before. I could be wrong though.Hardly new Tim.
Reasonable people see it for what it really is. You're right. It's awful.I don’t think this merit based thing has ever been formally proposed before. I could be wrong though.
Either way it’s awful.
Canada, New Zealand and Australia use the same type of merit based system. I heard it is about 65% merit based and 35% non merit if they are using the same type of plan. Also this is for people who apply legal immigration not illegals.I don’t think this merit based thing has ever been formally proposed before. I could be wrong though.
Either way it’s awful.
timschochet said:
I don’t think this merit based thing has ever been formally proposed before. I could be wrong though.
DJT is not competent, does not talk well at all, does not have any ideas of his very own and surely doesn't competently talk about those ideas he never has. Also, whatever ideas he may stumble across in the vast wasteland that is his brain are solely for his own benefit.What gets me is Bush followed by Trump. You just need to be competent, then you can talk ideas.
Obama. Beyond political, why would Republicans hate him? His policies were not left, even ACA was a Republican policy.DJT is not competent, does not talk well at all, does not have any ideas of his very own and surely doesn't competently talk about those ideas he never has. Also, whatever ideas he may stumble across in the vast wasteland that is his brain are solely for his own benefit.
eta: I'm fairly convinced he received the Republican nomination because they thought he'd be malleable and easily convinced to push whatever agenda/legislation they wanted to push. Well, that and he absolutely hates Obama.
....it had nothing to with Obama being liberal and not reaching across the isle ever.The color of his skin. Let's not forget that McConnel spent 8 years refusing to work with him and stonewalled his SC nomination. All because of his skin color.
Mitt was from the liberal side of the party governing the most liberal state in the country. It was not a policy with widespread Republican support.Obama. Beyond political, why would Republicans hate him? His policies were not left, even ACA was a Republican policy.
Many of today's Republicans are not conservatives, at least not fiscally.But in general you should not be expecting new legislative ideas from Republicans. Ever since the New Deal, the main conservative philosophy has been to attempt to scale back the size of government. The only exception being the military.
TerribleThey have lots of new ideas. Only today, President Trump proposed a major overhaul to our immigration system.
This is exactly right, and exactly my philosophy, save for increasing military spending, which should be at the worst held constant.But in general you should not be expecting new legislative ideas from Republicans. Ever since the New Deal, the main conservative philosophy has been to attempt to scale back the size of government. The only exception being the military.
Genuine question....do you stay home on election day? If anything's been clear to me since I've been allowed to vote, it's that neither party is all that interested in scaling back government. Their actions tell us that loud and clear. Do you go just for local things?This is exactly right, and exactly my philosophy, save for increasing military spending, which should be at the worst held constant.But in general you should not be expecting new legislative ideas from Republicans. Ever since the New Deal, the main conservative philosophy has been to attempt to scale back the size of government. The only exception being the military.
How do you feel about increasing spending (military and otherwise) while at the same time reducing revenue (i.e. tax cuts)?This is exactly right, and exactly my philosophy, save for increasing military spending, which should be at the worst held constant.
I absolutely stay home election day and have just registered to vote in my new state of California. When I lived in CT, I voted in Congressional races and once for the presidency in 2004. (I voted for Bush.) I did not vote for the President in '00, '08, '12, and '16. I keep my politics at the local level, and have never registered a party and likely never will unless there are serious primary concerns of mine, which '16 should have been.Genuine question....do you stay home on election day? If anything's been clear to me since I've been allowed to vote, it's that neither party is all that interested in scaling back government. Their actions tell us that loud and clear. Do you go just for local things?
I would prefer to reduce the size of government rather than raise taxes to cover deficits and debt, though deficits aren't too big of a problem with me.How do you feel about increasing spending (military and otherwise) while at the same time reducing revenue (i.e. tax cuts)?
I absolutely stay home election day and have just registered to vote in my new state of California. When I lived in CT, I voted in Congressional races and once for the presidency in 2004. (I voted for Bush.) I did not vote for the President in '00, '08, '12, and '16. I keep my politics at the local level, and have never registered a party and likely never will unless there are serious primary concerns of mine, which '16 should have been.
That said, I don't vote unless I know the candidates and issues.
back atcha.Morality needs to be restored as a foundational premise IMO
This is absolutely true. But what I wrote about wanting to scale back government has survived in terms of this formula: while Republicans rarely actually ever cut spending (they’re typically afraid of public reaction), they generally oppose all new programs and almost never offer any of their own.Many of today's Republicans are not conservatives, at least not fiscally.
Well, it's certainly something I have struggled with, but for now, the way I see it is, eventually our true self comes out. Given enough time, it always comes out. Knowing that, I'd rather have someone who's genuinely working towards what they think is correct over someone is completely morally bankrupt. Given enough time, that moral bankruptcy WILL show its face and I'd rather not have people in positions of power when that happens.back atcha.
I think that I'm really conflicted about your last statement. I'm not sure whether morality is best served by the structure and appointees of actual governance rather than the temperament of figurehead of American politics (the president), or whether this concern about morality and domestic and foreign diplomacy -- or even the Golden Rule -- should be primary. I'm honestly unsure at this point.