Tyndmyr wrote:I believe that "instruct them to be more efficient and determined" is perhaps not much of a plan. Obama's admin has deported quite a lot of people, so it seems unlikely that they're all just sitting there, waiting for such instructions to come down the pipe.
In practice, it seems to be more a matter of money. Dramatic expansion of government programs that are not themselves productive comes with a bunch of cost. Now, sure, security sometimes is worth the cost, but I've not yet seen a persuasive breakdown of why this plan is worth it.
I suppose that wasn't the best way to phrase it. I guess what I was getting at is that border security, deportation, and enforcement of citizenship requirements would receive stronger emphasis and imperative. I don't deny that the Obama administration has been doing it's job regarding deportation, but I do believe it could be better if the administration wanted. The idea of sanctuary cities, in particular, seems insane to me. The fact that a city - not even a state, but a city
- has the audacity to tell people "come to us, and we'll protect you from federal laws" is beyond belief.
While, in theory, a safe zone in Syria sounds nice, I have my doubts about either candidate establishing that. How do you think Trump would accomplish this?
I, too, have my doubts, and no, I don't believe Trump would do much to make it happen. He seems more focused on keeping refugees out than helping them, but his professed reasons are sound. Trump has said, and I believe rightly so, that none of the forces in conflict in Syria are our allies, or even aligned with our interests. Russia has an interest in protecting Assad's regime, and that means driving out ISIS. Assad is no friend of the U.S., and he's likely guilty of war crimes and humanitarian violations, but ISIS is guilty of far worse.
It's a no-win situation for us to take a side in the conflict, but given our historical role on the world stage, we can't allow innocent people to suffer for it. Hillary would bring every Syrian civilian here if she could which would almost definitely expose us to attacks from within. Trump would keep them out and let the chips fall which would almost definitely protect us from those same attacks, but it would be at the expense of unacceptable loss of human life and livelihood elsewhere. Neither of these is a good option, and I think it is worth the effort to do what we can for the Syrian civilians in their own country. It might even be worthwhile to get our allies to commit to a joint effort on that front.
He fundamentally isn't a small government sort of person. It is deeply unlikely he will seek to limit his own power.
That describes what I expect to get from either candidate, so I'm not holding my breath. Entitlement reform, downsizing, and a stronger effort to eliminate fraud are really more wishlist items than anything.
Honestly, he probably wouldn't build the wall. He might add some fencing or whatever, but the plan of "Make the Mexicans pay for it" will probably not work out. So, we'll see some marginal border security additions, success will be declared, nothing of import will change. The usual, with regards to the border.
Everyone seems to take "make the Mexicans pay for it" literally, and that may very well be what Trump means, though that's just plain silly. The way I see it (and I'm coming from the standpoint of a governmental accountant), the Mexican government can be made to pay for it simply by having the U.S. pay for it, and then reducing things like foreign aid and increasing tariffs by a corresponding amount.
Personally, I don't want Roe v Wade revisited. It'd just be ugly, and it'd never end.
Agreed. I'm proud of my (mostly) conservative values, but the matter of abortion is one I've always fallen left on. While it would be awesome if everyone could be more responsible (in every aspect of their lives, not just sex), it's just not a realistic thing. That's also not to say that abortion only comes up in the event of irresponsibility. I think where the Supreme Court decision stands now is an okay place to leave it because, as you say, it would just be ugly and never-ending. What it comes down to is that while all life is precious and should be protected, no one - literally fucking no one - should have the right to tell a woman what she's going to do with her body. My wife and I lost our first baby when my wife was five months pregnant, and that was by far the most devastating and traumatic thing I've ever experienced, and that was sudden and beyond our control. I can't begin to imagine how difficult it must be to wrestle with that decision.
Trump won't explicitly state that the justices he'll appoint would overturn the decision, but it's not hard to see that's the angle he's got. Roe v Wade is the single strongest argument anyone can make to me against Trump or for Clinton, but all things considered in the big picture, I lean so far away from Clinton policy that I could never vote for her, and I lean closely enough toward Trump policy that I support him.