Some 2020 General Election Polls

User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by Tortoise » Mon Aug 17, 2020 12:56 am

The rioters and looters in the blue cities are committing crimes and endangering life and property.

The Trump-supporting protesters toting their AR-15s are not.

That’s the difference.
User avatar
shekels
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:01 am

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by shekels » Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:47 am

Kbg wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 12:10 am
Once upon a time, the GOP stood on the three pillars of individual liberty, fiscal conservatism and a moral foreign policy. It was a party that claimed to adhere to the Constitution and the rule of law. No Republican leader today abides by these tenets. Since Trump’s election, some GOP senators have become part and parcel of his movement, one that is as dangerous as it is chaotic.

It is not conservative to stand silently by and watch as the president of the United States deploys federal authorities into city streets. The act flies in the face of the rule of law and due process, and is an abusive government overreach. National Republicans now only cry states’ rights when it suits them. For them, if it’s a blue city in a blue state, prep the tear gas and load the rubber bullets. If it’s Trump supporters toting AR-15s and Confederate flags and calling for Michigan (and Democrat) Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s ouster? Crickets.


This!
Good point.
I have the thought in the back of my mind that Trump is not a Republican in the broader sense.
So that is why the people back him to the hilt.
When the masses have been screwed around by Government for a very long time,
Trump is/was the candidate to throw a wrench in the machinery.
When you perceive that you have nothing to lose, you look elsewhere.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by glennds » Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:03 am

shekels wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:47 am
Kbg wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 12:10 am
Once upon a time, the GOP stood on the three pillars of individual liberty, fiscal conservatism and a moral foreign policy. It was a party that claimed to adhere to the Constitution and the rule of law. No Republican leader today abides by these tenets. Since Trump’s election, some GOP senators have become part and parcel of his movement, one that is as dangerous as it is chaotic.

It is not conservative to stand silently by and watch as the president of the United States deploys federal authorities into city streets. The act flies in the face of the rule of law and due process, and is an abusive government overreach. National Republicans now only cry states’ rights when it suits them. For them, if it’s a blue city in a blue state, prep the tear gas and load the rubber bullets. If it’s Trump supporters toting AR-15s and Confederate flags and calling for Michigan (and Democrat) Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s ouster? Crickets.


This!
Good point.
I have the thought in the back of my mind that Trump is not a Republican in the broader sense.
So that is why the people back him to the hilt.
When the masses have been screwed around by Government for a very long time,
Trump is/was the candidate to throw a wrench in the machinery.
When you perceive that you have nothing to lose, you look elsewhere.
It's an understandable sentiment.

The caution would be when you look back in history, you will find a pattern that most every autocratic, strongman fascist dictator came into power on the back of a "we're fed up with government" public mood. Bolshevik Lenin/Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il, Robert Mugabe, Napoleon, certainly Hitler. Once the fed up masses handed the levers of power over to the hero that would upend the past and save them, he eventually turned the gun on the public until the saga played out to it's bitter end.

To be fair, there have been instances of extensive power being handed to a leader who used it benevolently. Good examples might be Lee Kuan Yew, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, maybe Simon Bolivar. In ancient history, Marcus Aurelius would have qualified. And there are a few outlier characters with a foot in both camps, like Pinochet or Tito.

The fascist autocrats have certain characteristics in common, most notably highly ideological, usually in a controversial, radical departure from the past, and also highly self absorbed personally.
The benevolent dictators were usually people of modest ego and unconcerned, almost oblivious to their self interest, personal gain.
Lee Kuan Yew lived in the same modest home most of his adult life, and asked in his will that it be demolished for fear it might be treated as some kind of museum or shrine to him which he thought was inappropriate. Upon his death, Ataturk willed all his personal assets to the Party and State Treasury for the benefit of the people of Turkey with the exception of an interest allocation for his 13 adopted children, most of whom I think were orphans.

Interesting that the number of evil, authoritarian dictators outweighs the list of benevolent ones. Perhaps this lends credibility to the adage that "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

So which way would our present occupant of the White House take us (given the opportunity)? Who knows. You can be the judge.

My point in response to your comment is merely that an angry, fed up public has proven to be a high risk, combustible circumstance.
User avatar
shekels
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:01 am

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by shekels » Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:27 am

glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:03 am

My point in response to your comment is merely that an angry, fed up public has proven to be a high risk, combustible circumstance.
True. It cuts both ways. Just a perspective from a rooftop.

Just look at the Riots today, they are on a different rooftop.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by glennds » Mon Aug 17, 2020 12:29 pm

shekels wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:27 am
glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:03 am

My point in response to your comment is merely that an angry, fed up public has proven to be a high risk, combustible circumstance.
True. It cuts both ways. Just a perspective from a rooftop.

Just look at the Riots today, they are on a different rooftop.
Okay, which poison would you pick?

I have no love for rioters, that's for sure. But a riot will burn itself out. Destruction to property. Casualties, maybe dozens of casualties. A temporary interruption to public safety. None of these are insignificant.

But a fascist autocrat gone bad? Maybe casualties in the thousands, millions? Generational impact? Global instability? I'll take a riot over a dictator any day.
Others might choose the dictator. Though I realize every dictator initially came into power because a majority of people wanted him. Angry, fed up people that wanted change.

The hard part is knowing whether you are dealing with Lee Kuan Yew or Mussolini.
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by Ad Orientem » Mon Aug 17, 2020 12:59 pm

A number of new polls have popped up since Friday... newest on top. (Edit: All of these polls were released within the last 24hrs give or take, so they are all current.)

General Election: Trump vs. Biden ABC News/Wash Post Biden 54, Trump 44 Biden +10
General Election: Trump vs. Biden CNN Biden 50, Trump 46 Biden +4
General Election: Trump vs. Biden CBS News/YouGov Biden 52, Trump 42 Biden +10
General Election: Trump vs. Biden NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Biden 50, Trump 41 Biden +9


North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden East Carolina U. Trump 47, Biden 47 Tie
Texas: Trump vs. Biden Rice Univ./YouGov* Trump 48, Biden 41 Trump +7



# = Biden
# = Trump
# = Within generally accepted margin of error typically +/- 3%.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4393
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by Xan » Mon Aug 17, 2020 1:24 pm

Kbg wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 1:20 pm
Tortoise wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 12:56 am
The rioters and looters in the blue cities are committing crimes and endangering life and property.

The Trump-supporting protesters toting their AR-15s are not.

That’s the difference.
An actual conservative could care less if blue cities want to blow themselves in riots and cowboy country wants to tote AR-15s around up so long as they are not messing with Federal stuff and causing interstate crime/sedition etc. This is the line. If antifa attacks a federal court in Seattle, the Feds should get involved, if a cattle ranching family takes over a BLM office in western Washington state the feds should get involved. Neither of these examples gets a pass if you are a conservative law and order guy/gal...and true conservatives outside the local area don't give a crap if it's a local issue. If Portland's elected leaders are cool with city offices getting burned down, their call. That's what state and local elections are for and they will need to answer to those voters.
In Portland it was a federal courthouse which was under siege. That's where the federal agents were.
User avatar
shekels
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:01 am

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by shekels » Mon Aug 17, 2020 2:28 pm

glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 12:29 pm
shekels wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:27 am
glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:03 am

My point in response to your comment is merely that an angry, fed up public has proven to be a high risk, combustible circumstance.
True. It cuts both ways. Just a perspective from a rooftop.

Just look at the Riots today, they are on a different rooftop.
Okay, which poison would you pick?

I have no love for rioters, that's for sure. But a riot will burn itself out. Destruction to property. Casualties, maybe dozens of casualties. A temporary interruption to public safety. None of these are insignificant.

But a fascist autocrat gone bad? Maybe casualties in the thousands, millions? Generational impact? Global instability? I'll take a riot over a dictator any day.
Others might choose the dictator. Though I realize every dictator initially came into power because a majority of people wanted him. Angry, fed up people that wanted change.

The hard part is knowing whether you are dealing with Lee Kuan Yew or Mussolini.
I will choose the paradigm we have Today with all it's faults.
Marxism that is on Display with the riots/protest has brought death to Millions of people.

Whatever you want to title the positions Marxist/ Socialism/Communism, it is all a brand of Collectivism.
Collectivism is very dangerous and death to your Personal Freedom.

Now that is not to say that today's paradigm does not have flaws,
but I will place my bet and see where it leads.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by Cortopassi » Mon Aug 17, 2020 8:10 pm

If anyone expects tech to go, damn, you're right, Trump is terrible, it will not happen.

I, however, while having severe TDS, can state that he has positions on many items that I am fine with, it is just wrapped up in a man that I cannot stand.

And I have also been quite clear that is illogical. But it's also a completely human response. I am not a machine just looking at results. The manner in how those results are achieved is supremely important as well.

Not that he also doesn't suck on some issues and flip flops a lot (no, I will not research a list).

We'll see in November if logic trumps emotion or if emotion trumps Trump.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by glennds » Tue Aug 18, 2020 12:13 am

Libertarian666 wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 5:37 pm
glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:03 am

Interesting that the number of evil, authoritarian dictators outweighs the list of benevolent ones. Perhaps this lends credibility to the adage that "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

So which way would our present occupant of the White House take us (given the opportunity)? Who knows. You can be the judge.

My point in response to your comment is merely that an angry, fed up public has proven to be a high risk, combustible circumstance.
Please name an unconstitutional action that President Trump has taken, and explain exactly why it is unconstitutional.
I think he has abused a constitutional power, namely presidential pardon, in a way that has undermined legitimate due process rather than rescuing a victim who was deprived of legitimate due process. And he's done it flagrantly, numerous times, mostly for people connected to him.

If you point out that other Presidents have done so too, I would say they were equally wrong. Although I don't recall any in my lifetime who were quite as flagrant about it as Trump.

On a related note, I happen to believe that the scope of executive authority has progressively expanded over the past 70 years or so, to the point where the office of the President is materially different than what is contemplated in the Constitution. This is just a personal opinion.

My post did not allege that Trump is an authoritarian dictator. Whether he will or not remains to be seen and is for each to judge. His characteristics, whether coincidental or aspirational are what they are.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by glennds » Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:01 am

Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 9:26 am
glennds wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 12:13 am
Libertarian666 wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 5:37 pm
glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:03 am

Interesting that the number of evil, authoritarian dictators outweighs the list of benevolent ones. Perhaps this lends credibility to the adage that "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

So which way would our present occupant of the White House take us (given the opportunity)? Who knows. You can be the judge.

My point in response to your comment is merely that an angry, fed up public has proven to be a high risk, combustible circumstance.
Please name an unconstitutional action that President Trump has taken, and explain exactly why it is unconstitutional.
I think he has abused a constitutional power, namely presidential pardon, in a way that has undermined legitimate due process rather than rescuing a victim who was deprived of legitimate due process. And he's done it flagrantly, numerous times, mostly for people connected to him.
So in other words, he used a constitutional power in a way you don't approve of.
That's not unconstitutional.
glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:03 am

If you point out that other Presidents have done so too, I would say they were equally wrong. Although I don't recall any in my lifetime who were quite as flagrant about it as Trump.
I guess that depends on what you mean by flagrant, and whether you are very young (or have a very bad memory). Remember the Marc Rich pardon? He was a big contributor to Bill Clinton, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence: https://www.thoughtco.com/controversial ... ew-3368325
glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:03 am
On a related note, I happen to believe that the scope of executive authority has progressively expanded over the past 70 years or so, to the point where the office of the President is materially different than what is contemplated in the Constitution. This is just a personal opinion.

My post did not allege that Trump is an authoritarian dictator. Whether he will or not remains to be seen and is for each to judge. His characteristics, whether coincidental or aspirational are what they are.
So you have no evidence that he has acted unconstitutionally. Thanks for clearing that up.
Yes, with the disclaimer that I am not a Constitutional scholar, I do not have any evidence that Trump has acted unconstitutionally. I never alleged that he did. Nor did I say that it is impossible to be an authoritarian dictator within constitutional parameters. Nor did I definitively say Trump is a bona fide authoritarian dictator at this moment in time. I merely pointed to historical reference to say the circumstances are in place for a potential authoritarian dictatorship. Whether it will happen I cannot say.

Indeed, many authoritarian dictators implemented their power within what would have been perfectly legal parameters at the time, usually expanded use of executive authority. Hitler did so after the Reichstag Fire in 1933 under an act granting him emergency powers, specifically the Reichstag Fire Decree, and later the Enabling Act. These powers allowed Hitler to begin sending clandestine Federal police forces into German cities for the purpose of protecting the public. These police were the beginnings of the SS which ultimately came to function as Hitler's private police.

So if your thesis is, if it's Constitutional, it can't be bad, I wouldn't necessarily agree. The Constitution is a fairly broad and sometimes unspecific document. This is why we need a SCOTUS to interpret it and even they get it wrong more than most people think. The Constitution is whatever it is interpreted to be at a particular time, and more importantly, what is enforced and practiced.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I am not a "Never Trumper" nor an "orange man bad" tribe member. I'm just a fan of history and an observer of patterns with an interest in futurism, realizing that none of us can definitively predict it.

Question for you: Do you feel that the Constitution grants the President unlimited immunity and virtually unlimited power? William Barr set forth a memo that provides an interpretation of executive power that is unprecedented, for the most part, and certainly supportive of what Trump has claimed to be "absolute authority". https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/the- ... residency/. Barr has consistently interpreted expansive Presidential power in his career going back to Nixon.https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... er/592951/

There are also lesser known classified executive powers known as Presidential Emergency Action Documents. It is believed that these powers, to which Congress is not privy, can permit the President to suspend habeus corpus, issue general warrants for the seizure of persons and property, detain "dangerous persons", and by some speculators, suspend the Constitution entirely.] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-wor ... -documents. Plenty of reading and references in the footnotes.

I don't know if such a thing could ever come to pass, but if it did, would you support a Presidential suspension of the Constitution, or any of its specific Articles or Amendments?
Do you think the President has the authority to suspend or delay the election, and if he did, would you support it?
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by glennds » Tue Aug 18, 2020 3:51 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 1:00 pm
glennds wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:01 am


Question for you: Do you feel that the Constitution grants the President unlimited immunity and virtually unlimited power? William Barr set forth a memo that provides an interpretation of executive power that is unprecedented, for the most part, and certainly supportive of what Trump has claimed to be "absolute authority". https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/the- ... residency/. Barr has consistently interpreted expansive Presidential power in his career going back to Nixon.https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... er/592951/
No, obviously the Constitution doesn't grant the President unlimited immunity or virtually unlimited power. There are a number of specific limitations on the Presidency, including the impeachment power.

As for articles from The Atlantic, that used to be a reputable magazine. It is now TDS central, so anything they say about Trump or his administration can safely be ignored.
glennds wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:01 am

There are also lesser known classified executive powers known as Presidential Emergency Action Documents. It is believed that these powers, to which Congress is not privy, can permit the President to suspend habeus corpus, issue general warrants for the seizure of persons and property, detain "dangerous persons", and by some speculators, suspend the Constitution entirely.] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-wor ... -documents. Plenty of reading and references in the footnotes.

I don't know if such a thing could ever come to pass, but if it did, would you support a Presidential suspension of the Constitution, or any of its specific Articles or Amendments?

Do you think the President has the authority to suspend or delay the election, and if he did, would you support it?
I do not support any suspension of the Constitution, or of any of its provisions, whether by the President, by the legislature, or by the Supreme Court, e.g., the disregard of virtually every provision of the Bill of Rights by former Presidents, the legislature and the Supreme Court, at various times.

The President also doesn't have the power to change the date of the election. That is in the hands of Congress.
So I see there is quite a bit we agree upon.

Generally speaking, I am less aligned (nor strongly against) either party. My bigger concern is the concentration of power in the hands of the executive branch, whomever might be in the chair.

As part of the Reichstag Fire Decree, Hitler was granted (and used) the power to suspend free press on the basis that the press was Communist/Marxist. He also suspended the right to public assembly on the basis that the assemblers were thugs threatening the safety of the public. These were all emergency powers. It could be coincidence that some of the recent developments in the US are reminiscent of the conditions that led to Hitler's dictatorship.
However, I think at the risk of being called paranoid, it would be prudent for libertarian minded types to watch closely the events of the next few months to see which way they tilt, using history as at least one reference for interpretation.

To be clear, it was not until the Enabling Act was legally passed by the German legislature that Hitler was given the right to rule by decree thereby consolidating his power as a true dictator. Up until that point, he was a temporary dictator under emergency powers.

Again, not a Constitutional scholar, but I like to retain the belief that the framers of the US Constitution were more than mindful of consolidation of power in the hands of any one individual or government branch.

Have we allowed ourselves to drift away from that ideal over an extended period due to the progressive expansion of executive authority over many administrations and calamities? If we like or trust a particular President, do we become okay with he/she wielding power that could be abused in the hands of another?

Fortuitous - today I found out CBS/Ted Koppel did a recent segment about this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rewriting- ... al-powers/. Worth a watch. Even if one doesn't trust CBS and/or might think Koppel a deranged maniac as his demeanor might imply, it's worth a watch. Use it as a jumping off point to do your own research using sources you trust.
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by sophie » Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:20 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 4:59 pm
This includes but is not limited to DACA, handling the riots, and pandemic response, none of which is the job of the executive branch of the federal government. The only time Trump has stepped in to the riots is to protect federal property, which IS his job. Otherwise, it's up to the states and cities to police their own territory, asking for help if they need it. And when they have asked for help, he has provided it, whether for policing or for medical supplies and services.
I see where these points are coming from, but I rather disagree. The federal government should indeed step in when a local government fails in its duty to protect its law-abiding population. Moreover, there is precedent for this dating back to the 19th century. It sounded to me like Trump wanted to intervene but he's holding back and limiting his role to protecting federal property.

As far as DACA...his executive orders here are really a dig at Congress to deal with the situation, as they should. I definitely am of a mixed opinion about this though. On the one hand, any yielding will only further encourage the illegal immigrant onslaught. On the other hand....the people in question have been living here all their lives and had no say in where they were brought up. Humanely speaking can you really bear to pack them all back off to a home country they can't even remember?

There's another good reason why Trump should not be fighting DACA: he may not realize this but he has a lot of support among Hispanics. They (the ones who got here legally anyway) are not sympathetic to illegal immigration AND they have borne a lot more of the effects of BLM-induced crime than the more well to do neighborhoods.
User avatar
drumminj
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:16 pm

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by drumminj » Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:39 pm

sophie wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:20 pm
Humanely speaking can you really bear to pack them all back off to a home country they can't even remember?
"Humanely speaking" sets up a very slippery slope.

Humanely speaking, can you really bear to let people sleep out in the cold?

Humanely speaking, can you really bear to let people starve to death?

Humanely speaking, can you let any dog be euthanized?

etc...

Laws should protect the citizens and be impartially enforced. Sometimes it means others may suffer, but it's simply not possible to avoid all negative impacts in the world (see risk avoidance thread :)
User avatar
drumminj
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:16 pm

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by drumminj » Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:41 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 4:59 pm
But the only President in my lifetime who has not tried to expand his own powers but has instead told Congress and state/city executives to do their jobs is... Donald Trump.

This includes but is not limited to DACA, handling the riots, and pandemic response, none of which is the job of the executive branch of the federal government. The only time Trump has stepped in to the riots is to protect federal property, which IS his job. Otherwise, it's up to the states and cities to police their own territory, asking for help if they need it. And when they have asked for help, he has provided it, whether for policing or for medical supplies and services.
Agree with you here, Tech. It's ironic how the left can manage to assert that Trump is trying to assert all this extra authority, when he's very clearly been deferring to local authorities when it's appropriate. Instead, they cry "Trump isn't doing anything!"
User avatar
drumminj
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:16 pm

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by drumminj » Tue Aug 18, 2020 6:10 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:57 pm
As for the DACA recipients, that is on their parents and those who encouraged them to come here illegally. Giving them amnesty will just make the problem worse.

Here's the problem with anything other than deportation: I would be okay with giving them permanent residency and no path to citizenship, but as soon as the Democrats get in, they will give them all citizenship. The only way to prevent that is to deport them. I'm not happy about that but it is entirely the fault of the Democrats that we are in this position in the first place.
I think this is the salient point -- their "suffering" (not sure a better term) is due to their parents illegal acts. It's a bi-product of their breaking the law, not any actions taken at this point.

We see this in many other scenarios -- if someone "gifts" you stolen goods (I'm assuming you don't know), you don't get to keep it when it's discovered. Are you harmed? Absolutely.

Sometimes there's collateral damage due to illegal acts but that's not a reason to abandon enforcing the law, and the burden of that damage falls on the lawbreaker.
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by stuper1 » Tue Aug 18, 2020 7:57 pm

Punishment has two purposes: justice and deterrence. If we let the DACA kids become citizens, then there is no deterrence effect. More Mexicans will sneak over with their babies because they will think that very likely in another 30 years we will have another amnesty event. If we don't do amnesty and do send the DACA kids home, then they will see that we mean business and hopefully they will get the picture that they need to go through legal immigration channels rather than sneaking across. It's harsh but that's how the world works. The fault is with the parents not the USA's immigration laws, which are similar to those of any other country.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by vnatale » Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:24 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 4:59 pm
glennds wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 3:51 pm

So I see there is quite a bit we agree upon.

Generally speaking, I am less aligned (nor strongly against) either party. My bigger concern is the concentration of power in the hands of the executive branch, whomever might be in the chair.

As part of the Reichstag Fire Decree, Hitler was granted (and used) the power to suspend free press on the basis that the press was Communist/Marxist. He also suspended the right to public assembly on the basis that the assemblers were thugs threatening the safety of the public. These were all emergency powers. It could be coincidence that some of the recent developments in the US are reminiscent of the conditions that led to Hitler's dictatorship.
However, I think at the risk of being called paranoid, it would be prudent for libertarian minded types to watch closely the events of the next few months to see which way they tilt, using history as at least one reference for interpretation.

To be clear, it was not until the Enabling Act was legally passed by the German legislature that Hitler was given the right to rule by decree thereby consolidating his power as a true dictator. Up until that point, he was a temporary dictator under emergency powers.

Again, not a Constitutional scholar, but I like to retain the belief that the framers of the US Constitution were more than mindful of consolidation of power in the hands of any one individual or government branch.

Have we allowed ourselves to drift away from that ideal over an extended period due to the progressive expansion of executive authority over many administrations and calamities? If we like or trust a particular President, do we become okay with he/she wielding power that could be abused in the hands of another?

Fortuitous - today I found out CBS/Ted Koppel did a recent segment about this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rewriting- ... al-powers/. Worth a watch. Even if one doesn't trust CBS and/or might think Koppel a deranged maniac as his demeanor might imply, it's worth a watch. Use it as a jumping off point to do your own research using sources you trust.
I am extremely suspicious of executive power and I'm certain that the Presidency is far too powerful today, much more than the Founders intended.

But the only President in my lifetime who has not tried to expand his own powers but has instead told Congress and state/city executives to do their jobs is... Donald Trump.

This includes but is not limited to DACA, handling the riots, and pandemic response, none of which is the job of the executive branch of the federal government. The only time Trump has stepped in to the riots is to protect federal property, which IS his job. Otherwise, it's up to the states and cities to police their own territory, asking for help if they need it. And when they have asked for help, he has provided it, whether for policing or for medical supplies and services.

He also hasn't gotten us into any new wars and is in fact drawing down overseas troops.

There are of course things I disapprove of, notably the incredible spending spree that the government has been on, but that is still primarily the responsibility of Congress, not the executive branch. Of course he has the veto, but what would people say if he vetoed one of the relief bills, which veto would probably be overridden anyway.

So overall, he is the least non-libertarian President of my lifetime. And when you consider what the Democrats would do if they got their hands on the White House, I'm all in for re-electing him.
A Trump tweet from 3+ years ago seems to signify his desires regarding how he would like the federal government to step into local and state government matters:

Trump pledge to "send in the feds" rankles Chicago cops, criminals and academics
BY JOSH SAUL ON 1/25/17 AT 5:02 PM EST

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-tweet-ra ... ics-548269


Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by vnatale » Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:27 pm

How does Trump currently rank?

Vinny

Which presidents brought the best stock market performance?

https://www.bankrate.com/investing/whic ... rformance/
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by vnatale » Wed Aug 19, 2020 6:56 am

What I put on Facebook earlier this morning.

Vinny


Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (80.56 KiB) Viewed 4380 times
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by sophie » Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:46 am

drumminj wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 6:10 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:57 pm
As for the DACA recipients, that is on their parents and those who encouraged them to come here illegally. Giving them amnesty will just make the problem worse.

Here's the problem with anything other than deportation: I would be okay with giving them permanent residency and no path to citizenship, but as soon as the Democrats get in, they will give them all citizenship. The only way to prevent that is to deport them. I'm not happy about that but it is entirely the fault of the Democrats that we are in this position in the first place.
I think this is the salient point -- their "suffering" (not sure a better term) is due to their parents illegal acts.
Completely agree. and I also see the point about giving them (would-be illegal immigrants, Democrats) an inch and knowing they will take a mile. The sticking point to me is that you are effectively holding the children responsible for their parents' illegal acts, which is contrary to what most of us consider fair. In some societies, the sins of the parents affect subsequent generations, but that's never been true in the U.S.

How about this for an idea? Allow the children to remain BUT on condition that the parents are deported, which is the appropriate response to their crime (and it IS a crime). Many children, I expect, would choose to go back with their parents, which is fine. The parents could then apply for legal re-entry, getting on line and proving they are not a public charge just like anyone else.

And, how about the following simple solution for minor children: the parents are subject to deportation and will have to take the kids with them. End of story. So DACA should only apply to age 18+.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4393
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by Xan » Wed Aug 19, 2020 9:02 am

vnatale wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 6:56 am
What I put on Facebook earlier this morning.

Vinny
This site:
https://neiliabiden.com/
paints a pretty clear picture of a heroic truck driver who did all he could to avoid/mitigate the accident, rushed to the scene and may have saved the two boys' lives, and then had his reputation tarnished by Biden claiming HE had been drunk when it appears in fact it may have been Mrs Biden who was drunk, with the toxicology report covered up.
User avatar
shekels
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:01 am

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by shekels » Wed Aug 19, 2020 9:53 am

sophie wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:46 am
drumminj wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 6:10 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:57 pm
As for the DACA recipients, that is on their parents and those who encouraged them to come here illegally. Giving them amnesty will just make the problem worse.

Here's the problem with anything other than deportation: I would be okay with giving them permanent residency and no path to citizenship, but as soon as the Democrats get in, they will give them all citizenship. The only way to prevent that is to deport them. I'm not happy about that but it is entirely the fault of the Democrats that we are in this position in the first place.
I think this is the salient point -- their "suffering" (not sure a better term) is due to their parents illegal acts.
Completely agree. and I also see the point about giving them (would-be illegal immigrants, Democrats) an inch and knowing they will take a mile. The sticking point to me is that you are effectively holding the children responsible for their parents' illegal acts, which is contrary to what most of us consider fair. In some societies, the sins of the parents affect subsequent generations, but that's never been true in the U.S.

How about this for an idea? Allow the children to remain BUT on condition that the parents are deported, which is the appropriate response to their crime (and it IS a crime). Many children, I expect, would choose to go back with their parents, which is fine. The parents could then apply for legal re-entry, getting on line and proving they are not a public charge just like anyone else.

And, how about the following simple solution for minor children: the parents are subject to deportation and will have to take the kids with them. End of story. So DACA should only apply to age 18+.
I'm sure some of you remember that in 1986 Ronald Reagan signed a bill that made illegals eligible for amnesty.

How did that work out?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
User avatar
shekels
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:01 am

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by shekels » Wed Aug 19, 2020 9:59 am

Xan wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 9:02 am
vnatale wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 6:56 am
What I put on Facebook earlier this morning.

Vinny
This site:
https://neiliabiden.com/
paints a pretty clear picture of a heroic truck driver who did all he could to avoid/mitigate the accident, rushed to the scene and may have saved the two boys' lives, and then had his reputation tarnished by Biden claiming HE had been drunk when it appears in fact it may have been Mrs Biden who was drunk, with the toxicology report covered up.
Joe Biden needs/has Reservations in Hell.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Some 2020 General Election Polls

Post by Libertarian666 » Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:15 am

sophie wrote:
Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:46 am
drumminj wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 6:10 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:57 pm
As for the DACA recipients, that is on their parents and those who encouraged them to come here illegally. Giving them amnesty will just make the problem worse.

Here's the problem with anything other than deportation: I would be okay with giving them permanent residency and no path to citizenship, but as soon as the Democrats get in, they will give them all citizenship. The only way to prevent that is to deport them. I'm not happy about that but it is entirely the fault of the Democrats that we are in this position in the first place.
I think this is the salient point -- their "suffering" (not sure a better term) is due to their parents illegal acts.
Completely agree. and I also see the point about giving them (would-be illegal immigrants, Democrats) an inch and knowing they will take a mile. The sticking point to me is that you are effectively holding the children responsible for their parents' illegal acts, which is contrary to what most of us consider fair. In some societies, the sins of the parents affect subsequent generations, but that's never been true in the U.S.

How about this for an idea? Allow the children to remain BUT on condition that the parents are deported, which is the appropriate response to their crime (and it IS a crime). Many children, I expect, would choose to go back with their parents, which is fine. The parents could then apply for legal re-entry, getting on line and proving they are not a public charge just like anyone else.

And, how about the following simple solution for minor children: the parents are subject to deportation and will have to take the kids with them. End of story. So DACA should only apply to age 18+.
This is incorrect. No one is being held responsible for anyone else's illegal acts.

Let's do a thought experiment.
Suppose Person A kidnaps Person B from Country C and brings him into Country D illegally.
Does Person B have a right to remain in country D? No.
Would sending him back to Country C be a punishment? No. It would be a recognition of the fact that he doesn't have a right to remain in Country D.

In the present case, Person B is a DACA recipient, Person A is the parent, Country C is their country of origin, and Country D is the US.

DACA recipients are not US citizens, nor are they permanent residents.
Thus, they have no right to remain in the US.
Deporting them back to their country of citizenship is not punishment for anyone's illegal acts; it is a recognition that they don't have any right to remain here.
Last edited by Libertarian666 on Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply