Utter Betrayal

[Octavious]

Oh, I see. Brownshirts and the like. It's not something that springs to mind immediately, I have to say.

[Incrementalist]

Is Hitler also included in the "Brown Values" cohort?

[leon1122]

Leon, how sane is it to put any trust at all in a constantly lying shithead with dark brown values?

At this point, I don't think it really matters who the President is. The deep state has full control over this country.

I suppose this is one way of coping with the fact that you backed someone who strays from your values but you had projected your own onto him. How did you feel when he said the lack of support for DACA in the bill was a major reason he was considering veto-ing the omnibus?

But Federal policies don't mean nearly as much as people give them credit for. I've been focusing more and more on local and state policies because those impact people day to day.

Well, let me you. What would you have done if you were a paleoconservative who's against immigration? I'm sure you would have supported Trump as well. There was and is no other option.

As for local and State policies, they may be more important to individual well-being in the short term. However, federal policies have a much bigger impact on the direction of the nation as a whole in the long-term. For instance, support for gay marriage has skyrocketed after the Obergefell v Hobbes ruling.

[jmo1121109]

How can someone who isn't Native American be against immigration?

[TrPrado]

Well, let me you. What would you have done if you were a paleoconservative who's against immigration? I'm sure you would have supported Trump as well. There was and is no other option.

If I were a paleocon I wouldn't be enthusiastic about the guy who kept signalling he's a neocon. But I suppose being a libertarian has taught me to curb my expectations for candidates.

Of course, the idea that no other options exist in politics is always self-fulfilling defeatism considering it's entirely possible for just about ANYONE to run for office somewhere (there are some legal requirements, obviously, but any ideology can get into a race).

As for local and State policies, they may be more important to individual well-being in the short term. However, federal policies have a much bigger impact on the direction of the nation as a whole in the long-term. For instance, support for gay marriage has skyrocketed after the Obergefell v Hobbes ruling.

Support was high before Obergefell also. But that has very little to do with the point. There are a handful of policies mandated by the courts, but they really are only a handful. Foreign relations is the one big sticking point that actually matters in terms of Federal politics, even if it has very little to do with why people vote for the people they do in the US. Everything starts and ends with state and municipal enforcement and movements.

[ubercacher16]

So what exactly are you complaining about? He's already president. You can't do shit about it. In three years you might, maybe.

Of course, the idea that no other options exist in politics is always self-fulfilling defeatism considering it's entirely possible for just about ANYONE to run for office somewhere (there are some legal requirements, obviously, but any ideology can get into a race).

Just because any ideology can get into a race doesn't mean that anyone other then either the Democrat or the Republican will become president. (It does mean that either of those could have any ideology) So those of us who voted for Trump "against our values" (I am most certainly not one of them) might have simply hated Clinton more.

[TrPrado]

Just because any ideology can get into a race doesn't mean that anyone other then either the Democrat or the Republican will become president. (It does mean that either of those could have any ideology) So those of us who voted for Trump "against our values" (I am most certainly not one of them) might have simply hated Clinton more.

That's part of what the primary system is supposed to do. (Of course, not everyone is enthusiastic about popular determination of a party's values. Notably active members of the Libertarian Party.)

Though a lot of my own point comes down to not being enthusiastically in favor of any candidate because in the Big Tent two-party system there's going to be some letdown somewhere.

Feeling betrayed by someone who did very little in attempting to pretend to be a paleocon who you (as in the universal you, since you personally don't seem to feel betrayed) supported because he was the closest thing to a paleocon by coincidence alone strikes me as a bit silly, ESPECIALLY because a primary system exists where it is possible to put someone forward before the election even happens.

[ziran]

the only ideology the standard politician has is power. that is, how to take it, how to keep it, and how to deny it to others.

[Octavious]

How can someone who isn't Native American be against immigration?

Via a basic understanding of the issues, perhaps?

[CroakandDagger]

"The native americans had an open borders policy and were displaced from their homes, so anyone who fears getting displaced from their home because of an open borders policy is delusional!"

Personally i've never quite understood why leftists think that the example of the native americans is something that supports their world view.

[ubercacher16]

Feeling betrayed by someone who did very little in attempting to pretend to be a paleocon who you (as in the universal you, since you personally don't seem to feel betrayed) supported because he was the closest thing to a paleocon by coincidence alone strikes me as a bit silly, ESPECIALLY because a primary system exists where it is possible to put someone forward before the election even happens.

I definitely agree with that.

the only ideology the standard politician has is power. that is, how to take it, how to keep it, and how to deny it to others.

You are absolutely correct.

[Foxcastle]

the only ideology the standard politician has is power. that is, how to take it, how to keep it, and how to deny it to others.

This is not new, in general, but the problem in US politics is that it is shifting more and more toward denying it to others.

[President Eden]

"The native americans had an open borders policy and were displaced from their homes, so anyone who fears getting displaced from their home because of an open borders policy is delusional!"

Personally i've never quite understood why leftists think that the example of the native americans is something that supports their world view.

Because they would rather play cute word games involving the idea of whites as "immigrants" to try to win gotcha points in lieu of substantive discussion with people who disagree with them on the issues.
In some ways it's hard to fault them for playing the +NaN game instead of cross-aisle discussion, nothing really happens to change anyone's minds anymore when the left engages people so they might as well try for style points with their friends.

[bo_sox48]

the only ideology the standard politician has is power. that is, how to take it, how to keep it, and how to deny it to others.

Stop electing standard politicians.

[bo_sox48]

In some ways it's hard to fault them for playing the +NaN game instead of cross-aisle discussion, nothing really happens to change anyone's minds anymore when the left engages people so they might as well try for style points with their friends.

If you think this problem is exclusive to the left, you're part of the problem. Spit up whatever Hannity is gagging you with.

[Incrementalist]

The arrival of Europeans in the new world resulted in the wholesale replacement of the previously existing American societies.

It's probably the worst example to use when trying to convince people of the benefits of immigration to the incumbent society.

[TrPrado]

Yeah, a lot of highly important differentiating details really conveniently slip out when anti-immigration folks start using European settlement as an argument against immigration.

For example the part where an established, state-backed warrior class created strongholds in a region that didn’t have any unifying state and had never had the opportunity to be party to the few international agreements that existed at the time.

As opposed to modern immigrants quite simply looking for a place to live that isn’t awful, without the same sort of state-backing that existed during the settlement period.

[Incrementalist]

"Yeah, a lot of highly important differentiating details really conveniently slip out when anti-immigration folks start using European settlement as an argument against immigration."

I agree that the case of the European settlement of the Americas is so different as to be irrelevant to the current immigration debate, but it was invoked as an example of "immigration" in this discussion (and others) by someone who is pro-immigration.

At best it muddies the waters, at worst it actually bolsters the anti-immigration position.

[CroakandDagger]

Interesting. The Aztecs had no unifying state, and everywhere that isn't a western democracy is awful?

That's certainly... a perspective, TrPrado.

[TrPrado]

To assert that the Aztecs unified the region is about as silly as early 20th century Mexican elites fantasizing that the Aztecs were the only native heritage the country has.

As to the other part of your post, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. If people are going to uproot from their home and go off to another country there’s likely something better that’s appealing.