Other than ‘not Trump’ what do Dems propose?
As the 2020 presidential campaign continues to crank up it’s wise for us to repeatedly ask ourselves this question: Aside from seething, rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth hatred of Donald Trump, what alternatives to Trump administration policies do any of the Democrats offer?
It was Clinton advisor James Carville who said, “It’s the economy, stupid,” so let’s start there. Is it the case here in late summer 2019 that U.S. unemployment is too low? Are there just too many people working and earning a paycheck? Are entirely too many formerly chronically unemployed blacks, Hispanics and women now working? Do we want them to go back to being idle?
Are wages rising too fast? Is inflation too tame? Are 401(k) balances getting too big? What, exactly, should Democrats do to reverse the harm to the economy done by Trump administration policies?
On the subject of trade, if tariffs are ill-advised and dangerous, do Democrats have some other means of addressing 40 years of Chinese mercantilism, intellectual property theft, commodity dumping, currency manipulation and corporate espionage? Should we return to the mouth-the-right-words-while-looking-the-other-way appeasement policies of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama? – policies that have led to the hollowing out of American manufacturing and the resulting diminishment of the heartland middle class?
What about energy and environmental policy? Should we return to the days when a small cabal of angry, West-hating Muslim despots held the American economy hostage via price-fixing the oil and gas markets? Having obtained near energy independence, should we shut-in all of those wells and revert to supplication at the feet of OPEC?
If the Dems want to rid the U.S. economy of its dependence on fossil fuels, do they have a replacement energy source that will keep the U.S. economy at full employment? And if the answer is “no” and the plan really is for the U.S. is to inflict upon itself a deep and lasting economic laceration in the name of saving the planet, do the Dems have a strategy for convincing the leaders of the vastly more polluting countries of India and China to do the same to their economies?
Immigration was a yuuuuge Trump issue in 2016 and it will be again in 2020. This fraught topic is essentially the only issue about which the Democrats have a specific policy agenda. All word-salad, focus-tested talking points to the contrary notwithstanding, the Dems want open borders. So, as we have asked previously in this space, do they have a plan for dealing with millions of poor, low-skilled, social services-consuming migrants? Do most Americans believe that any such plan would be better than stopping migrants from illegally entering the country in the first place?
The question of Campaign 2020 boils down to this. White-hot hatred of Donald Trump is, above all and to the exclusion of nearly everything else, what animates Democrats. If that alone is sufficient to get one or another of the announced Democrats elected, what then will that Democrat do to govern more effectively than Donald Trump has?
Thank you very much for making the effort to bring the facts to the Texas public. The Democrats would sell their soul to turn the state of Texas, but with your efforts and the efforts of a few others the Democrats will never win.
RE “social services-consuming migrants:”
Google AP analysis: Undocumented low-income immigrants consume less Medicaid, Food Aid, Cash Assistance & SSI than people born here.
RELAX. Trump keeps Tweeting pics of The Wall being-built. And Mexico WILL pay for it, right? So fret-not employment. Help Wanted: pickers, hotel chambermaids.
Also on Labor Day…
RE “replacement energy source that will keep the U.S. economy at full employment:”
CAN ANY single industry? Texas being the USA’s #1 wind power state, y’all should appreciate how Renewable Energy is now the top job growth category.
RE “here in late summer 2019:”
Y’all who abide Trump should take some comfort that these polls showing several Dems would beat him are responses to the standard predicate: “If the election were held today…”
It’s not. So with consensus 2020 GDP forecast @ 1.8%, a sugar-high Dow (https://theweek.com/speedreads/861872/trump-made-highlevel-chinese-tradetalk-calls-boost-markets-aides-admit) and now Recession elsewhere, take less comfort that today’s numbers are tomorrow’s.
The answer to the question you pose regarding what the Dems propose beyond a very psychotic hatred of Trump is NOTHING! What they do have is a very organized cabal of left wing institutions that are dedicated to removing from office this threat to the deep state swamp. When you combine their willingness to import illegal voters with the unwillingness to have voter I.D., this is a formidable platform. Let us not forget the complicity of the education institutions, the media, the entertainment industry, and especially the bureaucrats protecting their turf. Also, there are many Republicans who profit from cheap labor and the military-industrial complex that will fight to the bitter end to maintain the cushy lifestyle that the swamp provides. I think that we are beginning to understand how powerful the establishment has become, and the extreme resistance that our president is facing in his efforts to “drain the swamp”. Only a few years ago, this rogues gallery of candidates would have been booed off the stage by an overwhelming majority of all Americans, including Democrats; however, the demographics of today have changed drastically. It is imperative that every patriotic American be involved in the 2020 elections up and down the ballot; we cannot just sit back and assume that the Dems radical ideas will create a huge backlash and a landslide for the Republicans. If there is a tendency to be complacent about this crucial election, just imagine our country as a larger Chicago or Baltimore. If that does not motivate one to get off the couch and get moving, I do not know what would!
Excellent. Wonderfully and truly written! Ron, you’ve said what more needs saying and very well, indeed.
Another outstanding column, Paul. The Democrats have no plan, none at all, for accomplishing anything useful. Being wholly bereft of ideas, they fall back on name calling and the blame game, with the liberal media their parrot. What a pitiful lot.
I just read an archived column that pointed back to the McGovern/Nixon race in 1972. The left and the media portrayed Nixon just like they do Trump now – a HUGE problem that no reasonable person could ever elect president. George was so far left that Nixon won with over 60% of the vote. After the dust settled George’s supporters tried to distance themselves from him, saying, “Well, at least I’m not as far left as George McGovern!” The same is true today. The democrats don’t realize their ideas leave a majority of the country in a quandary. Do I vote with my heart or with my head?! SOME dems do, thus their endorsement of Hickenlooper over others in the Colorado race. Others are pointing out the deficiencies in the policies of their presidential primary opponents. They are looking for electability! Others are clueless! They will say anything. They just want to win!! They realize the only way to deal with (defeat) a non-political opponent like Trump is to try something never done before. They know the usual tactics don’t work against Trump, because NO political opponent has ever ACTED like Trump before. This may be the most cogent argument for term-limits for ALL elected officials. Private-sector jobs RELY on performance to continue. Government jobs do not! Trump doesn’t have to worry about winning an election after this one. He is trying to do what the people that voted for him expect from him…put America FIRST! Argue about his personality, tweets, hairstyle, whatever. Argue about his ability to bring America out of the position it was in back in 20016? Go ahead and try. Others are but with very limited success.
I forgot to respond to our resident “other side” opinion that deserves consideration. As usual, their attempt to deflect conversation from the topic of discussion while bringing up useless “facts” is normal. Of course Texas leads the nation in wind farm development. Where the hell CAN you build wind farms in New York City?! Or LA? Or Chicago? Immigrants consume “less than” citizens? Ok, ANY of MY money is TOO DAMN MUCH!! FOLLOW the laws, just like I have to do! Also, the wall wasnt BEGUN in 2016. It was already there in places. Trump just figured out that HALF of a wall was absolutely useless!! WHY NOT FINISH THE DAMN THING!! The reason for ANY wall is to control, not deny, access. The left insists that renewable energy is the only way, and yet blackouts (forced or accidental) are already a part of life these days. Wait until ALL vehicles are electric. As for the economy, some left-wing pundits are actually PRAYING (oops, politically-incorrect!?) for a recession to help their cause! REALLY?!?!
Thanks, Darrell. Another right on target summation. I’ve really enjoyed reading your thoughts as well as those of Mr. Bammel and Mr. Eagleman, all so well expressed.
Ron Eagleman: “many Republicans who profit from cheap labor”
Not JUST Republicans, but you’re right!
These people are baked-into the USA workforce.
And all the hollering in the world won’t change that.
And this particular issue exemplifies how the bumpersticker-size headline is lots sexier than the underlying detail: A doctor/researcher I interviewed could put a cocktail party to sleep with the longer version, so here’s the short one…
BY THE NUMBERS it costs society less to give undocumented immigrant workers FREE kidney transplants than not to. Why: 1980s law codified our Christian values by requiring Emergency Room care to those who can’t pay for it. Americans are Good Samaritans. But those who meet the need threshold for ER dialysis require TWO sessions + a hospital night = $300K per person per incident. Then they’ll be back. A free transplant actually costs the system less. But what fun is THAT explanation? It’ll never fit on a bumpersticker.
Suggestion: Google “The Problem With Believing What We’re Told” in this weekend’s edition of that lefty rag The Wall Street Journal.
RE “the military-industrial complex that will fight to the bitter end to maintain the cushy lifestyle that the swamp provides.”
AMEN. And THOSE Republicans hardly seem like the same party as Ike, who warned us accordingly.
Darrell Durham, RE “useless facts” (those DARN facts): “Of course Texas leads the nation in wind farm development. Where the hell CAN you build wind farms in New York City?! Or LA? Or Chicago? ”
I chuckled as I read this, on my phone, on the beach, LOOKING AT the USA’s first offshore wind farm: http://dwwind.com/project/block-island-wind-farm/
Three miles off,’ just five windmills generate enough power for 10,000+ homes. Because there are only several hundred on our 12-square-mile island, we’re feeding the smartgrid. So, when Texas wind dies down, you’re welcome. And vice-versa! “Smartgrid.”
When you hear our president mockingly ask “What about when the wind stops blowing?” Google “Elon Musk,” whose Powerwall batteries will be a component of the neighborhood-size solar/wind mini-grids that will eventually replace Puerto Rico’s island-wide grid so prone to hurricane damage.
RE “PRAYING (oops, politically-incorrect!?)”
NOT! As for the other story dominating the news this weekend, may this New Englander among Paul’s wide following send (though the expression alone is painfully inadequate) thoughts-AND-prayers to the people in Odessa there. Another week, another gun nut. It’s all enough to make ya want to go live on an island.
The guy in Odessa had problems. But the gun didn’t cause them, they simply provided him a means to confront them. However, his rampage continued until someone SHOT him. With a gun. That’s how most mass shootings end. Someone besides the shooter shows up with a gun. The liberals tell you to just hide and wait, police are coming.
Let’s arm EVERYONE, eh?
All good points from Buddy, Darrell, and Jean. It seems like the “gun grabbers” never notice that most of the mass shootings occur in gun-free locations, and that these cowards/lunatics are stopped by law abiding citizen(s) (or law enforcement) who are using their second amendment right to keep and bear arms! Yes, Holland, these nuts who use guns or anything else they can get their hands on to satisfy a mental disorder should make “ya want to go live on an island”. I understand that Cuba is an island that has very restrictive gun laws; this scenic island could be the destination of your dreams. It could be the answer to your concerns about our constitution. Just kidding, we need you here, as your comments are well stated…… even if a little misguided and misdirected.
Early-adopter tourist pals give Cuba disappointing reviews. “They’re not ready for us,” in terms of infrastructure, tho everyone who’s been says the people there are warm and welcoming. Trump has chilled the long-overdue warming USA/Cuba relationship that makes LOTS of (trade) dollars and sense. And Major League Baseball NEEDS more pitching.
RE guns: Watch Trump on Background Checks, because, as I phrased it above, and you agreed, the “gun nuts” ARE the problem. Why this is when-not-if:
1. There WILL be more massacres.
2. Google the polls. White suburban women voters have had-it-up-to-here.
3. Trump looks at the NRA like a lion eyeing a limping antelope. They’re broke, and now being outspent by end-the-madness ad campaigns.
4. Google these polls too: Most Americans, Republicans, gun owners, and NRA MEMBERS want Background Checks.
We already have background checks. But if the important information doesn’t get reported, entered and shared nationwide, a report comes back clean. To answer your first question, Holland: NO, not everyone needs a gun, and not everyone WANTS a gun. But to deny a person the ability to protect themselves and others they care about by taking away guns in your quest to end mass killings is just as silly as trying to cure skin cancer by requiring everyone to wear long sleeves. When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. I would much rather try to find out why so many children are so misguided. Why does Johnny want to kill people? Why does Johnny want to be Jennifer?! And I agree with Ron – I do enjoy reading what Holland has to say. Now if we could get the whole country together…
When you have taken away the guns and psychopaths start running over people with cars (like has already occurred) will you then require us the “sell them to the government” like Beto said about guns?
Other than “Red Flag” laws now embraced so widely across the political spectrum, the only talk I have ever heard about confiscation comes from the right, not the left. This is a canard, a bogeyman.
Uhhh…not so fast.
Beto O’Rourke, Saturday, Aug. 31, Charlottesville, VA:
““I want to be really clear that that’s exactly what we are going to do. Americans who own AR-15s, AK-47s, will have to sell them to the government. We’re not going to allow them to stay on our streets, to show up in our communities, to be used against us in our synagogues, our churches, our mosques, our Walmarts, our public places.”
BREAKING: “McConnell vows to bring gun legislation to the floor if Trump supports it.”
Like Trump, the self-proclaimed “Grim Reaper” of House-passed legislation is up in 2020…and smelling-the-coffee.
And like every invertebrate populating The Swamp, Majority Follower McConnell is saying you-go-first,
RE Beto buy-back idea: Where I live – smallest town in the smallest state in the USA, VERY rural – deer hunting is encouraged, to cull the herd. None of those hunters need AR-15s or AK-47s or 100-round magazines.
Five years ago last week, CVS got out of the cigarette business. Applause to Walmart for similar corporate courage now.
No, hunters do not need those guns to hunt. Those calibers are available in other guns. Those weapons were designed and built for the military and should NEVER have been sold elsewhere. But American excess led to millions in circulation. However, trying to legislate away bad behavior doesn’t work, and government confiscation of property is a bad idea. We have enough unenforced/ineffective laws.
Assault weapon ban legislation has already been enacted, but it was rescinded because it did not work. This pesky little fact does not deter those who are determined to disarm the population. As the Dem front runner so eloquently stated “we believe in truth over facts” The truth is that these leftists want an obedient population, and the fact is that the second amendment is the only thing that will protect us from an oppressive government. This is exactly as the founding fathers intended! Anyone ever wonder why all of these irate citizens of countries around the world are throwing rocks, etc. at well-protected and ARMED government soldiers? As I will paraphrase Benjamin Franklin; “those who are willing to give up freedom for temporary safety deserve neither”.
“Defeat goes over defense before detail.”
Even though this debate has devolved into the gun issue, I have a issue that is directly on target but nobody asks this question: “How many people were saved from death or severe injury or no injury at all, because a “good guy” with a firearm stopped or prevented a “bad guy” from harming or killing an innocent person(s) BECAUSE he was able to use his firearm to DEFEND himself or others?” Counting those that did not get hurt (by defensive action) vs. those that were murdered or maimed (illegally) can’t be done very easily. My guess is that the “good” use of a legal weapon vastly outnumbers the “bad” use of a firearm by hundreds of times but this doesn’t fit the “gun grabbers” half truth and fallacious fear mongering. We are debating a false argument from the dishonest Left.
The Second Amendment gives us, the citizen, the duty to be in charge of weapons for our DEFENSE of ANY KIND from threats to our individual or collective freedom. The hunting issue is not germane to this Constitutional Right as given by our Creator. It means that the Government is subordinate to those Rights. The Left wants to reverse this and make all of us subjects of the State to be “ruled over.” When this Right is defeated by the Left, we become easy pickings for tyranny.
Though your question has theoretical appeal, I’d still prefer not to be in a darkened movie theater fulla gun-totin’ good guys when someone like that nut job in Aurora tosses in a smoke bomb then opens fire.
A 20+ year veteran of a major city metro’ police force (now teaching Criminal Justice) whom I interviewed asks “How do I know who ‘the good guy’ is?” He says “If I respond to an Active Shooter call, and you have a gun and you’re not in uniform, I shoot YOU.”
Given your choice of example and comments, it is obvious that you feel safer in a theater with a “nut job” bent on murdering YOU and a lot of other innocent people than to have a bunch of “gun-totin’ good guys” that have the BRAVERY to defend YOU and anyone else from certain murder by the “nut job,” should that unpredictable insanity occur. There is no substitute for vigilance when confronted by evil when mass murder is afoot by criminals that, by definition, don’t respect the Law in any form (guns, murder, etc.)
This is a sad commentary on your perception of us “red necks” that you distrust in “fly over country.” You really need to leave your elitist cocoon and try to learn about those of us who dominate Conservative thought in this country that often encounter evil people and have the common sense to recognize that evil can’t be outlawed; it must be STOPPED by ordinary citizens if necessary, if we are to survive in cases like this. We are not the Neanderthals that you obviously think us to be (by inference). I’ll bet those that were murdered in Aurora were praying that some BRAVE “good guy” with a gun was there to defend them BEFORE they died by the hands of an evil person that also KNEW that he was in a “gun free zone,” i.e., HIS shooting gallery from which he feared no retaliation.
It is a shame that your police veteran would discourage BRAVERY by a “good guy with a gun” for fear of being killed by “friendly fire” when trying to SAVE lives as a defender against an evil murderer. The veteran obviously doesn’t trust an armed and lawful citizenry that has the RIGHT to DEFEND themselves and others. He would rather let the murderer run rampant while waiting on the police to arrive in order to stop the carnage. How pathetic that he ALSO doesn’t trust the exercise of a Lawful self-defense by ordinary citizens. You and he have turned the Constitution upside down. No wonder that there is such a huge divide in this country. Apparently, your dogmatic beliefs are more important to you than proper self-defense that saves lives. The safest place on earth is at a “gun show” which is the polar opposite of a “gun-free-zone.” Criminals will always outnumber police in total population. However, criminals will never outnumber an armed and Lawful citizenry with the Right of self-defense if the Constitutional is the Supreme Law of the Land and practiced faithfully.
The truth of the matter is that you Leftists use these mass murdering situations to argue for elimination of the Second amendment in order to further your goal of setting up an elitist tyrannical global government that becomes a replacement for our blessed Constitution and national identity and sovereignty. These God given Rights that are unique to this country have become the main obstacles to your devious goals of a Marxist utopia that you can force on us when the citizenry is defenseless – no guns, right? We’ve seen this movie before. Try to learn about the murderous regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al., from the last century from which hundreds of millions of UNARMED souls were murdered and sacrificed in the name of these Leftist utopian tyrannies that eliminated ALL opposition against the State sponsored Dictatorship (for their own good, don’t you know).