Would Cruz/Palin Be An Unbeatable Ticket?

[craigr]

My thinking is that Cruz and Paul are going to keep jabbing sticks in the eyes of the GOP establishment for the next few years. I get the feeling they both know how unpopular the core GOP leadership is and are going to milk it for everything. We'll just have to see if the enthusiasm lasts from the press and public...

[Mdraf]

They are each going after a different constituency. Cruz is after the disgruntled Tea Party types. Paul is courting the quasi-libertarians and is also targeting the under 25 libertarian leaning Democrats. Together they could take over the GOP.

[Reub]

I don't think that Paul has what is necessary to become President.

[Libertarian666]

I don't think that Paul has what is necessary to become President.

He's not criminally inclined enough?

[Reub]

Bland and boring and will not appeal to the masses.

[Libertarian666]

Bland and boring and will not appeal to the masses.

Someone had better tell the pollsters that:
(from http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main ... .html#more)

Q14 If the candidates for President next time were
Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Rand
Paul, who would you vote for?
Hillary Clinton.................................................. 39%
Rand Paul ....................................................... 49%
Not sure .......................................................... 12%

[Benko]

"Rand Paul ....................................................... 49%"
Wow.  The masses discover sanity?  Perhaps a community  organizer can really teach people important things.

I just watched part of an interview of Paul on the daily show and he might be the best president (of the choices).  He is articulate, can explain his views, and even got in a zinger again John Oliver. 

He is mild mannered and I wonder if electable (vs someone more charismatic), but perhaps the country is now ready for sanity. 

[Coffee]

He doesn't come across as genuine on certain issues, but rather as someone who holds the same beliefs as his father but discovered how to more deftly say what will appeal to a more traditional Republican voter on those issues.  Namely, foreign policy and immigration.

[Benko]

OOps:

By SEN. RAND PAUL | 6/25/13

I will be voting no on the Senate’s Gang of Eight immigration bill for one simple reason: because the legislation does not secure the border first.

By ALEXANDER BURNS | 7/11/13 1:35 PM EDT

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul still believes the GOP would benefit from enacting a version of immigration reform before the 2016 elections, even though he voted against the comprehensive overhaul passed in the Senate at the end of June.

So Ryan, Rubio and Rand all want immigration reform.

[Jan Van]

i don't know exactly what he means by reform.... with the laws going unenforced, the border going unsecured, the rules and bureaucracy promoting all manner of unnecessary cost and unintended consequences, it seems to me major reform is called for! but my definition of reform is not likely matching up with what any politician defines it as.
I suspect it wouldn't match rand Paul's either, but given his views on other issues he might be closer to wanting a step in the direction i would take than any other politician out there

...the border going unsecured,...

Isn't the Border Patrol at an all-time high with number of agents? Plus that fence?

Or do you mean the Canadian border?

it is largely border control theater/government boondoggle , a random and not terribly large percentage of immigrants and drug smugglers get stopped, the rest don't.

as long as the war on drugs creates a financial intensive to figure out ways to beat the border security (usually as simple as walking across ) and the cost and bureaucratic nightmare makes legal immigration more trouble than its worth, and the welfare, assistance and plentiful under the table/off the book jobs exist, and their baby's become anchors that let them chain immigrate entire extended families, there wont be any real progress at sorting out immigration, its a very interconnected multifaceted issue...

[Benko]

There is also the fact that illegal immigrants are all potential democrats.

The democrats don't want border control for the same reason they don't want people to need an ID to vote.

yes... and this too...

[MediumTex]

...the border going unsecured,...

Isn't the Border Patrol at an all-time high with number of agents? Plus that fence?

Or do you mean the Canadian border?

it is largely border control theater/government boondoggle , a random and not terribly large percentage of immigrants and drug smugglers get stopped, the rest don't.

as long as the war on drugs creates a financial intensive to figure out ways to beat the border security (usually as simple as walking across ) and the cost and bureaucratic nightmare makes legal immigration more trouble than its worth, and the welfare, assistance and plentiful under the table/off the book jobs exist, and their baby's become anchors that let them chain immigrate entire extended families, there wont be any real progress at sorting out immigration, its a very interconnected multifaceted issue...

If you've ever driven along the Texas/Mexico border, you might have a more nuanced view.

It's not an unsecure border at all.  There are tons of Border Patrol officers, cameras, sensors, and fences.  Importantly, there also a series of checkpoints along the highways that are used to travel away from the border so that even if you get across the border, unless you want to walk hundreds of miles, you've got to figure out how to get past those checkpoints as well.

I guess it might be more secure with a Great Wall of China-style wall with gun turrets along the Mexican border, but what's going on now isn't bad.

1,954 mi total border length, a large percentage of those who get turned back on any given day will try again until they do make it, the drug traffic has even better incentives to get stuff across..

i actually don't buy the big fence argument. i think a combination of some fence, some technology and some manpower and letting the guys working on the border make decisions about what works best and where, based on first hand knowledge is the best approach, but even that wont work until you sort out all the other interconnected issues...

what we really have is border that cant be secured with manpower or fences or money alone, that doesn't mean the guys in border-patrol aren't trying, or that money isn't being spent, or mean all the effort you see expended in Texas is doing much good....

[Mdraf]

The same cannot be said for the wide open Arizona border

[MediumTex]

The same cannot be said for the wide open Arizona border

I don't know anything about things out there.  What about the sheriff out there who is always in the news?  Is he actually doing anything helpful in stemming the flow of illegals?

[Benko]

I guess it might be more secure with a Great Wall of China-style wall with gun turrets along the Mexican border, but what's going on now isn't bad.

1. Would a home defense system for your house that "wasn't bad" be sufficient?

http://www.khou.com/news/The-high-cost- ... 38759.html
AUSTIN, Texas -- As Washington refuses to agree on a federal immigration policy, violent illegal immigrants from around the world are committing crimes in Texas. They are putting a strain on both the criminal justice system and the state budget...

Over the past year, Bradley has prosecuted two murders in Cedar Park involving illegal Hondurans. In one case, a man raped and murdered a nine-year-old girl. The second killed his wife.

2. Keep in mind that at least some terrorists aren't stupid and a not bad US southern border is an open invitation to smuggling whatever weapon into the US terrorists can obtain e.g. biological, dirty bomb, etc. 

[Mdraf]

The same cannot be said for the wide open Arizona border

I don't know anything about things out there.  What about the sheriff out there who is always in the news?  Is he actually doing anything helpful in stemming the flow of illegals?

The border sheriffs have been sued into submission by the feds

AZ Border Ranchers: “It’s Not Our Country Anymore,

[MediumTex]

I guess it might be more secure with a Great Wall of China-style wall with gun turrets along the Mexican border, but what's going on now isn't bad.

1. Would a home defense system for your house that "wasn't bad" be sufficient?

http://www.khou.com/news/The-high-cost- ... 38759.html
AUSTIN, Texas -- As Washington refuses to agree on a federal immigration policy, violent illegal immigrants from around the world are committing crimes in Texas. They are putting a strain on both the criminal justice system and the state budget...

Over the past year, Bradley has prosecuted two murders in Cedar Park involving illegal Hondurans. In one case, a man raped and murdered a nine-year-old girl. The second killed his wife.

2. Keep in mind that at least some terrorists aren't stupid and a not bad US southern border is an open invitation to smuggling whatever weapon into the US terrorists can obtain e.g. biological, dirty bomb, etc.

I just wanted to make it clear that illegally crossing the border from Mexico into the U.S. can be quite difficult.

That's all I was saying.

We could certainly make it more difficult.

[Coffee]

i don't know if it matters how difficult you make it, the Berlin wall was "difficult" to the point of being deadly and people still crossed it.
the ratio of difficulty to incentive is likely what really counts the most... moderately difficult to cross would be enough if there was little or no incentive to do so....

We're probably getting off topic, but:
How many people a day crossed the Berlin wall?  How many people a day cross our border? 
You can't say, "It doesn't matter" and "People still crossed it."  Because matter of degrees does count.  It's the difference between a paper cut and losing an arm.

The Israelis built a wall.  It hasn't stopped all terrorism, but it has stopped about 90%.  I think that's worth it.  Especially before terrorists start walking across our southern border and blowing up our shopping malls.  If you hand me a solution to my problems that is 90% effective... I'll take it!

[Pointedstick]

We're probably getting off topic, but:
How many people a day crossed the Berlin wall?  How many people a day cross our border?

Actually, hasn't illegal immigration really dropped off recently?

If you want to talk about matters of degree, think of the size of Israel's wall compared to a border wall for all of the USA-Mexico border. It would be bigger than the great wall of China!

[Coffee]

We're probably getting off topic, but:
How many people a day crossed the Berlin wall?  How many people a day cross our border?

Actually, hasn't illegal immigration really dropped off recently?

If you want to talk about matters of degree, think of the size of Israel's wall compared to a border wall for all of the USA-Mexico border. It would be bigger than the great wall of China!

It doesn't have to be a physical fence.  You put the Mexicans on alert that we're going to have trained marksmen stationed every mile, where we can't build a fence.  Pedro will quickly realize: "It's not worth the risk, I'll wait in line like everyone else."

There will be a cost in human lives.  There will likely be 100-200 people who get shot still trying to come across the border.  Once they realize we're not messing around anymore, it will stop.

When U.S. Industry realizes that the illegal cheap labor is drying up, you'll suddenly see Congress come up with a LEGAL solution to immigration that (most likely) involves a quick pass check that processes immigration quickly yet weeds out the criminals.

i don't know if it matters how difficult you make it, the Berlin wall was "difficult" to the point of being deadly and people still crossed it.
the ratio of difficulty to incentive is likely what really counts the most... moderately difficult to cross would be enough if there was little or no incentive to do so....

We're probably getting off topic, but:
How many people a day crossed the Berlin wall? How many people a day cross our border?
You can't say, "It doesn't matter" and "People still crossed it." Because matter of degrees does count. It's the difference between a paper cut and losing an arm.

The Israelis built a wall. It hasn't stopped all terrorism, but it has stopped about 90%. I think that's worth it. Especially before terrorists start walking across our southern border and blowing up our shopping malls. If you hand me a solution to my problems that is 90% effective... I'll take it!

i think the point is one of incentive more than degree... if there are easy ways to immigrate legally, and crossing the border illegally doesn't give you freedom, welfare, or anchor baby's, and there was no profit in drug smuggling to pay to invent new ways across... would the terrorists easily afford to pay what it would cost to beat the system of walls man power and technology to get in? and would the border patrol be better able to stop them having far less attempts to cross taking their attention away?
you wont ever get the 90%+ effective we want until the value of crossing drops and the difficulty rises at the same time, as long as the profitability of crossing (coyotes getting payed better to smuggle people in , and drug prices rising due to scarcity) keep jumping up with every foot of wall there will be a will and a means to defeat any security system you build.

[Pointedstick]

It doesn't have to be a physical fence.  You put the Mexicans on alert that we're going to have trained marksmen stationed every mile, where we can't build a fence.  Pedro will quickly realize: "It's not worth the risk, I'll wait in line like everyone else."

There will be a cost in human lives.  There will likely be 100-200 people who get shot still trying to come across the border.  Once they realize we're not messing around anymore, it will stop.

When U.S. Industry realizes that the illegal cheap labor is drying up, you'll suddenly see Congress come up with a LEGAL solution to immigration that (most likely) involves a quick pass check that processes immigration quickly yet weeds out the criminals.

Do you really think that would get enough support? The idea of having the government kill people who are attempting to cross a line it's drawn doesn't make me feel real warm and fuzzy. It's a malum prohibitum crime, not malum in se, and as such, imposing the death penalty for it seems a bit harsh.

It feels like a very different thing from shooting a home invader, for example. The home invader is trying to injure you, steal things that belong to you, etc. An illegal immigrant is (usually) just looking for a better life. Of course if his idea of a better life involves robbery or murder that's a different proposition, but then you can charge them with those crimes!

And I'm not saying I'm against border controls and enforcement. But making illegal immigration a capital offense is something I would have a hard time with.

[Coffee]

We're probably getting off topic, but:
How many people a day crossed the Berlin wall?  How many people a day cross our border?

Actually, hasn't illegal immigration really dropped off recently?

If you want to talk about matters of degree, think of the size of Israel's wall compared to a border wall for all of the USA-Mexico border. It would be bigger than the great wall of China!

It doesn't have to be a physical fence.  You put the Mexicans on alert that we're going to have trained marksmen stationed every mile, where we can't build a fence.  Pedro will quickly realize: "It's not worth the risk, I'll wait in line like everyone else."

There will be a cost in human lives.  There will likely be 100-200 people who get shot still trying to come across the border.  Once they realize we're not messing around anymore, it will stop.

When U.S. Industry realizes that the illegal cheap labor is drying up, you'll suddenly see Congress come up with a LEGAL solution to immigration that (most likely) involves a quick pass check that processes immigration quickly yet weeds out the criminals.

No, there won't, because you make it economically unviable for them.  It's basic economics: if the price of hiring a coyote to get you across now costs $20k, but after you station soldiers along the border, the price to do it is $300k, you're going to see an immediate stop, because these peasants simply can't afford it.  Not to mention the risk to life and limb. 

As for drug smuggling: They'll probably find another way.  It will be more expensive.  That will increase the price of the drugs, which will cause demand to drop.  Or they'll find a new market.  Maybe China?

[Coffee]

It doesn't have to be a physical fence.  You put the Mexicans on alert that we're going to have trained marksmen stationed every mile, where we can't build a fence.  Pedro will quickly realize: "It's not worth the risk, I'll wait in line like everyone else."

There will be a cost in human lives.  There will likely be 100-200 people who get shot still trying to come across the border.  Once they realize we're not messing around anymore, it will stop.

When U.S. Industry realizes that the illegal cheap labor is drying up, you'll suddenly see Congress come up with a LEGAL solution to immigration that (most likely) involves a quick pass check that processes immigration quickly yet weeds out the criminals.

Do you really think that would get enough support? The idea of having the government kill people who are attempting to cross a line it's drawn doesn't make me feel real warm and fuzzy. It's a malum prohibitum crime, not malum in se, and as such, imposing the death penalty for it seems a bit harsh.

It feels like a very different thing from shooting a home invader, for example. The home invader is trying to injure you, steal things that belong to you, etc. An illegal immigrant is (usually) just looking for a better life. Of course if his idea of a better life involves robbery or murder that's a different proposition, but then you can charge them with those crimes!

And I'm not saying I'm against border controls and enforcement. But making illegal immigration a capital offense is something I would have a hard time with.

You're not making illegal immigration a capital offense.  You're defending your border.  Most countries in the world do it.  Even "The Switzerland of Latin America"... the country with no military (Costa Rica) has guys with rifles standing on their border.

[Pointedstick]

You're "defending your border" by "making illegal immigration a capital offense". Let's call a spade a spade if we're going to advocate it. Saying, "don't do X or we'll shoot you" is making it a capital offense.

[Benko]

The home invader is trying to injure you, steal things that belong to you, etc. An illegal immigrant is (usually) just looking for a better life. Of course if his idea of a better life involves robbery or murder that's a different proposition, but then you can charge them with those crimes!

"but then you can charge them with those crimes"
After the murder and someone is dead?  Or after they smuggle in a terrorist weapon and many are dead?

How many countries on the planet allow as porous borders as we do?  WHy is that?